Wronged

[AJD00]

I live in Michigan, I was driving on the express way and got stuck in stop and go traffic. It sped up to the point where i was going between 30-40 mph. No faster. I had a safe distance between the guy in front of me, The guy in front of me stopped rather suddenly and so i proceeded to stop. My brakes did not catch at first and therefore took up half the cap of our cars, i pumped the brakes got it to work but didn't stop in time. There is no damage to my car and very little damage to his. There were about 6 Bic ball point ben size circles where the paint came off but thats it. The problem was it was a rental. Therefore not only did he need my insurance, (no big deal) but we HAD to call the Police. The police officer came out and well the norm happened. lol. Well the guy in front of me said that "he had been looking back at me and that i was on my phone." Well here's the problem. My phone was in my backpack on the PASSENGER SIDE FLOOR. No way was i on it. Second if he was so busy looking at me could this have caused him to stop suddenly, Third i got a ticket for CARELESS Driving, BECAUSE of the phone thing. Well the officer did not verify the story before the ticket was wrote, so idk what to do. Im extremely frustrated and annoyed. The brakes work fine now, and Since he is 40 ish and im 18 im afraid i will not be judged fairly because there is no proof on my side and cuz im basically a teen. Idk what to do. Help please.

[The Occultist]

Assuming that you have an otherwise clean record, this will likely be an easy charge to plea down. My advice is to not fight the charges, but explain the situation, show utter remorse for what occurred, and request that they give you a charge that you will plead guilty to that more closely represents the situation as you see it.

You should consider seeking the representation of a traffic attorney. It may seem like such would be too expensive, but considering the increase on your insurance premiums, you'll likely find that the cost of the attorney isn't so bad after all. Local attorneys know best what the courts want to hear, and as such present the highest potential in yielding the most favorable results. Many attorneys will offer free/cheap consultation, so you should take advantage of this and sit down with a couple to see what insight they may have to offer.

[justalayman]

=AJD00;2324496] I had a safe distance between the guy in front of me

,Obviously not a true statement proven simply by the fact you did hit him. It's either that or you weren't paying attention.

. Therefore not only did he need my insurance, (no big deal) but we HAD to call the Police.

If you ever question the need to call the police due to an accident, you need to research when such a report is legally required. It is required in most any accident.

Third i got a ticket for CARELESS Driving, BECAUSE of the phone thing. Well the officer did not verify the story before the ticket was wrote, so idk what to do.

actually, whether it was due to the phone or not, you are guilty of careless driving:

257.626b Careless or negligent operation of vehicle as civil infraction.
Sec. 626b.

A person who operates a vehicle upon a highway or a frozen public lake, stream, or pond or other place open to the general public including an area designated for the parking of vehicles in a careless or negligent manner likely to endanger any person or property, but without wantonness or recklessness, is responsible for a civil infraction.


History: Add. 1965, Act 262, Eff. Mar. 31, 1966 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 510, Eff. Aug. 1, 1979

by virtue of the accident itself, you are guilty of the charge.

Im extremely frustrated and annoyed. The brakes work fine now, and Since he is 40 ish and im 18 im afraid i will not be judged fairly because there is no proof on my side and cuz im basically a teen. Idk what to do. Help please

Not really sure of what you are looking for. In Michigan, hitting a person from the rear is prima facia evidence of fault and by virtue of the accident, you are guilty of the charges. I simply do not see anything to negate or diminish the charges, especially since careless driving is an infraction as opposed to many other charges, which are misdemeanors.

The one thing to take solace in is you will only be liable for up to $500 maximum and that is only if there is at least that amount not covered by the other parties insurance.

[LSCAP]

The OP said his brakes didn’t catch at first. A not uncommon complaint with anti-lock brakes. If even one wheel hops- and then locks up for a fraction of a second the anti-lock eases back on your braking. And the only really quick cure is pump the pedal. (btw only on some systems. And yep it happened to me, but I was quick enough to knock off the antilock.)

Usually accidents under a certain amount of money -damage- need not be reported. So you don’t Always have to report all accidents. In this case it was because a vehicle was leased.

His complaint is against the claim that he was on the phone, which he denies. And the officer should have at least checked out.
Deniable in court because the officer did not look himself.

And I’m tired of people always blaming the cell phone.

I agree with Occultist about getting a local attorney. One that can “promise” justice.

[LSCAP]

That section of law 257.626b describes the offenseCareless or negligent operation of vehicle as civil infraction.
Sec. 626b.
It does not state that having an accident means you are guilty.

[davew128]

Originally Posted by LSCAP

His complaint is against the claim that he was on the phone, which he denies. And the officer should have at least checked out.
Deniable in court because the officer did not look himself.[/b]

I also find it hard to believe that a driver in front is looking in his rearview DIRECTLY at the driver behind closely enough to tell if he is on the phone.

OP, presumably you can find cell phone records that verify you were not making a call at that time.

[justalayman]

=LSCAP;2324750]The OP said his brakes didn’t catch at first. A not uncommon complaint with anti-lock brakes. If even one wheel hops- and then locks up for a fraction of a second the anti-lock eases back on your braking. And the only really quick cure is pump the pedal. (btw only on some systems. And yep it happened to me, but I was quick enough to knock off the antilock.)

you are wrong about the brakes "not catching". There is nothing inherent to anti-lock brakes that would cause them to "not catch" unless there was a malfunction. and no, pumping of the pedal is the worst thing you can do. You are now trying to circumvent exactly what the anti-lock systems were designed to do. You can apply much more stopping force with that little actuator thumping away than you could ever control manually that is unless you can act faster than that little computer can. You will actually cause your stopping distance to increase taking your advice.

Now, if his brakes did not catch due to lack of maintenance, then OP is even more liable for driving a car in an unsafe condition.

Usually accidents under a certain amount of money -damage- need not be reported. So you don’t Always have to report all accidents. In this case it was because a vehicle was leased

.a leased vehicle mandates (legally) a call? I don't think so but if you can prove it, I'll accept it.

I believe the limit is $1000 in Michigan. It takes very little damage to cause $1000 in damage. I was not inferring it was required in this situation but the OP seemed to believe that the police had to be called simply because it was a rental. As I stated, I do not believe Michigan law requires a call for that reason. The injured party may have had to call the police due to a contractual obligation but I do not think it is mandated by state law.

His complaint is against the claim that he was on the phone, which he denies. And the officer should have at least checked out.
Deniable in court because the officer did not look himself

.In reality, it is irrelevant. The hit itself is all that is needed to make the charge. In Michigan, it is prima facia evidence of fault.

And I’m tired of people always blaming the cell phone.

of course it's not the cell phone. It's the idiot with it glued to his head that causes the problems.

I see nothing an attorney can do in this situation. OP will be liable for no more than $500 in damages and the act of hitting a person in the rear is all the evidence required to place cause, OP is not going to win. The charge is as minimal as you can get unless he can get it to a non-moving violation, which I doubt would happen.

That section of law 257.626b describes the offenseCareless or negligent operation of vehicle as civil infraction.
Sec. 626b.
It does not state that having an accident means you are guilty.

I didn't say it did but the following one does.

257.402 Rear end collision; prima facie evidence of negligence.
Sec. 402.

(a) In any action, in any court in this state when it is shown by competent evidence, that a vehicle traveling in a certain direction, overtook and struck the rear end of another vehicle proceeding in the same direction, or lawfully standing upon any highway within this state, the driver or operator of such first mentioned vehicle shall be deemed prima facie guilty of negligence. This section shall apply, in appropriate cases, to the owner of such first mentioned vehicle and to the employer of its driver or operator.

(b) This section may not be invoked by the owner of any vehicle, the rear of which was struck under the circumstances above mentioned, if the accident occurred between 1 hour after sunset and 1 hour before sunrise, and the vehicle so struck did not, at the time, have a lighted lamp or lantern reasonably visible to the drivers of vehicles approaching from the rear.

[Zigner]

Ok, let's say that the OP was NOT on the phone. OP is still guilty as charged.

A few years back I witnessed a rear end accident. The person in the rear got out of the car saying over and over again "My brakes wouldn't work". I was next to her and 1 car length back. Her brakes were working just fine. She was just going way too fast to stop in time...

[LSCAP]

Justalayman, you are calling me a liar. The company van I was driving had about 10,000 miles on it. I was driving at about forty five miles an hour in a forty mile an hour zone. As I came around a curve in the road, I saw that the traffic was backed up at a light. I started to brake, with plenty of time and distance, when one rear wheel hit a manhole cover and hopped into the air. The wheel immediately locked up, And the Anti-lock system backed off on my braking. I let up on the pedal for a fraction of a second and then down again. Stopping just in time.
I have over fifty years of driving experience. And have been a Driving Instructor, drove a race car, a highway patrolman, and currently drive over a hundred miles of mixed town and highway a day. And haven’t had an accident that was my fault in about fifty years.
The damn anti-lock is not perfect.
It is supposed to back off if a wheel, or wheels lock up. I haven’t made the mistake of locking up my wheels in over fifty years.

And the Officer Did Not see the cell phone in use, and did not check to see if it was available. Had he checked and found it in the backpack it might have been different. Taking the word of some other driver is a joke.

[LSCAP]

Correct that to be forty miles an hour in a forty five mph zone.

I can't seem to get the edit to work.

[LSCAP]

And I did not say the report was mandated because of the leased vehicle. The other driver was right in reporting it so he would not get blamed for the damage by the leasing company.
Sometimes a slight accident can cause a lot more damage than is evident.

I think we agree on this one.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by LSCAP

And I did not say the report was mandated because of the leased vehicle. The other driver was right in reporting it so he would not get blamed for the damage by the leasing company.
Sometimes a slight accident can cause a lot more damage than is evident.

I think we agree on this one.

well, it appeared somebody was implying that, at least to me. OP originally did (as I read the post) and then you seemed to take up with the same reasoning. Maybe it was just my misunderstanding of OP and your meaning.


all is cool at FA again I hope. The following is not meant to be argumentative but simple a bit of info.

Justalayman, you are calling me a liar. The company van I was driving had about 10,000 miles on it. I was driving at about forty five miles an hour in a forty mile an hour zone. As I came around a curve in the road, I saw that the traffic was backed up at a light. I started to brake, with plenty of time and distance, when one rear wheel hit a manhole cover and hopped into the air. The wheel immediately locked up, And the Anti-lock system backed off on my braking. I let up on the pedal for a fraction of a second and then down again. Stopping just in time.
I have over fifty years of driving experience. And have been a Driving Instructor, drove a race car, a highway patrolman, and currently drive over a hundred miles of mixed town and highway a day. And haven’t had an accident that was my fault in about fifty years.
The damn anti-lock is not perfect.
It is supposed to back off if a wheel, or wheels lock up. I haven’t made the mistake of locking up my wheels in over fifty years.

And the Officer Did Not see the cell phone in use, and did not check to see if it was available. Had he checked and found it in the backpack it might have been different. Taking the word of some other driver is a joke.

Calling you a liar? Absolutely not but I would like you to understand that I have worked on brake systems for decades. I even testified in court about anti-lock brakes before. I understand them quite well and know what they do and do not do.

a modern day anti lock brake system uses a 4 channel actuator. It is capable of pulsing each wheels brakes independently from any other. It uses a sensor for each wheel and compares the speed of each wheel to every other wheel. When any wheel is found to be rotating at a predetermined speed less than any other wheel while the brakes are applied, the pressure to that one wheel is reduced, via the pulsing action you feel in the pedal, so to allow it to be at the same speed as the other wheels.

a common incorrect assumption and use of the anti-lock system is that a human can provide a more forceful braking action by self modulation. The fact is; they can't. An ABS system can determine the speed of each wheel independently and modulate each wheel independently so as to provide the maximum braking force possible.

By releasing the brakes at all, you have now reduced the pressure to all wheels and as such, have reduced the force being applied for braking. The ABS will allow the higher pressure to continue at any wheel that is not showing signs of skidding and will modulate the pressure at any wheel that is skidding. You cannot do this with your foot.

In your situation with the van (if you had 4 channel ABS), you would have stopped sooner had you not lifted your foot. That split second of no braking translates into distance. At 40 mph, you are travelling about 58 feet per second. If you release the brake for 1/4 second, you have now added 14.5 feet to your stopping distance that would not have been lost by simply continuing to apply pressure. There is nothing you can do to recover that distance. You have simply moved forward with no braking action at all to slow you.

Now, one thing I would like to add;

many trucks do not use 4 channel ABS, or at least the didn't up until quite recently. In fact, many trucks had a very simple system that only actuated on the rear brakes. Those were actually intended less to improve stopping distance and more to add a level of safety as a truck when unloaded has an inherent tendency to lock the rear wheels which can cause the truck to spin. If I remember correctly, Ford had a huge problem with this.

There was actually a mechanical system used before electronic ABS systems were available. It used a variable proportioning valve that responded to the distance in between the axle and the frame. As a vehicle stops, obviously the rear lifts which increased the distance. A connecting arm translated this motion to the valve which reduced the amount of pressure allowed through the proportioning valve. An unloaded truck sets higher and will lift more under braking so the valve would restrict pressure more with an unloaded truck than one that is loaded and hopefully prevent rear wheel lock-up and the resulting spin.

Even being that, since the rear brakes are the only brakes with reduced pressure, it will not tend to increase stopping distance any great amount simply due to the fact that, especially when not loaded, the front brakes of a truck will provide the greatest percentage of the braking action. Somewhere north of 70% would not be uncommon and usually even more.

In a situation with a rear wheel only system, I am not convinced that your reaction was beneficial but not worth arguing. I can't prove it and am not of the mind to research and study it.

And the Officer Did Not see the cell phone in use, and did not check to see if it was available. Had he checked and found it in the backpack it might have been different. Taking the word of some other driver is a joke.

like I said, on the phone, not on the phone; irrelevant. I quoted the MCL that the hit itself was all that was needed to charge him with careless driving.

It may have caused the officer to not issue a ticket at all if the phone was not involved but in reality, the charge was righteous.

[LSCAP]

Since I hate Anti-lock systems, and all the other gadgets they put on cars. I can only say, The more complex the system the more likely you will have a problem.
On second thought, I will add, You said, that I had added 14.5 feet. The damn pedal became rock hard, and none of my other wheels had locked up. I won't challenge your knowledge about anti-lock systems, don't challenge my knowledge and experience as a driver.

These wonderful systems are for people who haven't learned to drive.

The Driver's Ed courses are a sad, deadly joke.

By the way, I usually look forward to your usually very accurante posts.