Cited for Improper Turn After Hitting a Patrol Vehicle

[jcarzer38]

Hello All,

It is not my intention to interfere with your posting, but I need help. This is my situation.
I was making my stop at an intersection (somewhere in Yuba City, California) getting ready to make a right turn. As I approached the intersection I did not notice anything out of the ordinary. I'm looking to my left allowing traffic to pass so I can make my turn, when the last car went by and I felt safe to move forward, so I made my right turn. To my surprise and after feeling a bump, I finally realized, a police car was in front of me facing the opossite (against traffic) direction partially on the bicycle lane. I hit the front of his car with my right front corner.
To me he was not supposed to be there as there was no emergency at the location other that the officer said " he was responding to an alarm call". No ticket was issued the day of the accident.

A report was taken, and I just picked it up. The report finds that I cased the accident citing VC 22107; in the report it specifies that no citation was issued.

I feel this is wrong, because in my head I did not do anything wrong; the officer on the other I believe the officer was the one who made the unsafe movements.

help please.

thank you

[Mr. Knowitall]

Had you looked in the direction your car was moving before driving into the patrol car, would you have seen the patrol car?

If you weren't issued a ticket, what exactly is it that you hope to accomplish?

[cyjeff]

You hit a parked car.

You lose.

[jk]

a very simple premise of driving: you need to look where you are going.

[cdwjava]

You admit that you looked to the left and then proceeded forward without again looking ahead of you or to the right. There might have been pedestrians or bicyclists aimlessly wandering in front of you, too - you just dn't know unless you look.

Yes, the officer's car would be an associated factor in the collision, but the fault will almost always be assiged to the moving vehicle.

22107. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move
right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with
reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate
signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other
vehicle may be affected by the movement.

Apparently the reporting officer felt that the movement was not made with "reasonable safety" as evidenced by the collision.

If you had been at a red light or a stop sign, I might have used a different section, but that one should work.

Understand that your insurance company may not come to the same conclusion the police report did because they can make an assumption of shared liability - the police report generally cannot. You might also be able to appeal any point applied to your driver's license as a result of the at-fault collision by requesting an administrative hearing with the DMV.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/driversafety/neg_operator.htm

[jcarzer38]

Thank you for your replies.

At this point to me it is a matter of doing the right thing. I believe the officer and the reporting officer taking the report are looking at the facts in their favor (or help each other); which is not correct. Honestly as a Citizen of the area, I do not want officers covering little things like this. If they are willing to protect each other here, can you imagine in other situations? are these officers worth our trust? I was driving a company vehicle and they do not care about how the company I work for will interpret their report. It is my word against their report; they just my come to the conclusion, I'm an unsafe driver and fire me!


The police officer was not there when I arrived to the intersection, he drove there while I was making my stop waiting for traffic to clear.


Thank you again

[cyjeff]

Thank you for your replies.

At this point to me it is a matter of doing the right thing. I believe the officer and the reporting officer taking the report are looking at the facts in their favor (or help each other); which is not correct. Honestly as a Citizen of the area, I do not want officers covering little things like this. If they are willing to protect each other here, can you imagine in other situations? are these officers worth our trust? I was driving a company vehicle and they do not care about how the company I work for will interpret their report. It is my word against their report; they just my come to the conclusion, I'm an unsafe driver and fire me!


The police officer was not there when I arrived to the intersection, he drove there while I was making my stop waiting for traffic to clear.


Thank you again

You are not understanding.

You hit a stopped car. That makes it your fault. "I wasn't looking where I was driving" is not a very strong defense.

[sniper]

In case you missed it in the replies, you hit a parked car. If it is parked legally or illegally, it dosen't change the fact that you propelled your vehicle into a parked one. So the patrol vehicle wasn't there when you were waiting for traffic to clear. So what. Does that mean since it was clear while you were waiting then it must be clear when the traffic in the intersection is clear? What if a pedestrian would have been crossing and been hit who wasn't there before? Then what?

Facts are facts in the report. If the report stated the patrol vehicle was parked facing the wrong way in a bicycle lane and you say it was there, that's a fact. You were turning your vehicle and hit a parked patrol vheicle, that's a fact. Facts are facts in the report. There is an opinion and conclusion section in the report which is the officer who is investigating the report's idea of how the collision occurred. That section, (usually including summary, AOI, and cause), are the investigating officer's opinion which is supported from the facts (usually including, but not limited to notification, physical evidence, other factual information, and statements).

If you believe the investigating officer was misguided in his report, then file a supplemental report with the Yuba City Police Department (or whichever agency took the collision report). Based off what was said here, you hitting a parked patrol vehicle, places you as the PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR.

[cdwjava]

At this point to me it is a matter of doing the right thing. I believe the officer and the reporting officer taking the report are looking at the facts in their favor (or help each other); which is not correct.

Actually, they are looking at things as prescribed under state law and SWITRS. The parked vehicle will likely be an Associated Factor, but is almost certainly NOT going to be the Primary Collision Factor as it was not moving and thus "owned" the space it was in - even if improperly parked.

Honestly as a Citizen of the area, I do not want officers covering little things like this.

Speak to your state legislator and the Commissioner of the CHP about changing the collision reporting laws.

If they are willing to protect each other here, can you imagine in other situations? are these officers worth our trust? I was driving a company vehicle and they do not care about how the company I work for will interpret their report. It is my word against their report; they just my come to the conclusion, I'm an unsafe driver and fire me!

It is NOT the job of the police to consider how someone else might interpret the report. They should write a report based upon the facts as they knew them, not on how to present the situation in the best possible light to one party or another.

As Sniper suggested, you can always write your own account of events and present it for inclusion in the report. The agency may or may not accept it, but at least you'll have a chance to put your own direct account.