Not at-fault accident causing California DMV suspension

[synthesis77]

Hey folks, perhaps someone can clarify exactly what constitutes an accident which would result in a point on a California DMV driving record.

Last year, I was the victim of hit-and-run by some guy who passed me on the left hand shoulder of an interstate highway, hitting me along the way. I ended up having to cut off another vehicle (but did not cause contact) when the guy on the shoulder moved back into my lane.

The third person and I followed the truck who hit me for about 15 minutes while on the phone with 911. We eventually ended up corralled by the police once they were able to locate us by my phone directions as we drove around.

After much pleading from me, the CHP took a report of the incident. However, they decided that since the third party (that I had to cut off) thought we were racing (or "playing tag with our vehicles" as he put it!) that I must've been at fault as well. Both the truck who hit me and myself were charged with reckless driving.

I recently pled to reduced charges of 22350 & 22107 just to be done with this issue. However, I still have a point on my license for the accident. The damage is negligable, and both the truck and the witness thought it didn't occur. The report claims that I was "an associated factor in this collision by driving in violation of CVC 22350".

Back to the question at hand: what will it take to get this accident off my record? I'm coming up on a negligent driver suspension (4pts: two old speeding tickets, the new charge I pled to, and the accident). Shouldn't you only get points for at-fault accidents? Does the "associated factor" make it such that I should get a point?

I'm willing to claim the accident didn't happen (their insurance already denied my claim) if there's some way to make it go away. The DMV mentioned that if I could get the CHP to fill out a DL208, I could make it disappear. I can't imagine they'll do that though.

Any suggestions? I have a DMV hearing on Tuesday and I'll try to go to the CHP tomorrow...

Thanks ever so much!

[Mr. Knowitall]

According to the California DMV,

• Most convictions of traffic offenses, such as hit and run, reckless driving, and driving under the influence (DUI) will remain on your record for 10 years from the violation date and count as 2 points.
• Most other traffic offense convictions will remain on your record for 3 years from the violation date and count as 1 point.
• Accidents are reported for 3 years from the accident date. If you are found to be at fault, the accident normally counts as 1 point.
• Actions taken against your driving privilege, such as a suspension or revocation due to a DUI or a failure to provide proof of financial responsibility, will be reported for 3 years from the proof termination date or the reinstatement date, whichever is earlier.
• A Failure To Appear for DUI offenses will be reported for 10 years from the violation date. All other Failure To Appears and Failure to Pay fines will be reported for 5 years from the violation date.

For further information refer to Retention of Driver Record Information.
See negligent operator violation point count to find out how violation points affect your driving privilege.

[synthesis77]

Thanks for the reply. I've certainly searched the web first and have seen that, but it's not particularly clear. "Normally" is a big variable, as well as "at fault". I wasn't at fault (I believe), I was an "associated factor". Anybody have a more detailed description of what determines "at fault" as relates to DMV points?

If you are found to be at fault, the accident normally counts as 1 point.

[cdwjava]

Going to the CHP at this point won't do much good - they are not going to change the report.

In the report there is a section on page two that indicates the PCF (Primary Collision Factor) and it lists a cause and the party at fault. If you are the party number at fault, then you get the hit for the violation.

I am not aware that the DMV assigns points for fault based upon Associated factors, but I suppose it is possible. It is the DMV that decides fault for purposes of a point, and they are the people you will have to ask about that.

- Carl

[synthesis77]

Thanks a bunch Carl! Squinting really hard, I can make out the PCF on my faxed copy and it lists the other party as the primary cause. (in fact, I had to download a blank form to find it!).

Down in other associated factors (3rd column, halfway down), I'm checked as violating basic speed (22350) but that's it. Later in the narrative, the officer details that same thing in text.

Given that, anybody have a suggestion for how to get the DMV to take the accident point off? My understanding was the same as Carl's that only at-fault accidents cause points.

[cdwjava]

Unfortunately for you, the DMV has some wiggle room.

CVC 12810(g) Any traffic accident in which the operator is deemed by the
department to be responsible shall be given a value of one point.

So, they could very well decide that you share some responsibility and should be given a point.

- Carl

[lwpat]

Your problem was in pleading guilty to the reduced charges. The officer did not see what happened and cannot testify. They would need the person that you cut off and that is not likely. An attorney would have been your best route and cheaper in the long run.

[cdwjava]

The officer might qualify as an expert based upon his training and experience and can use his observations to determine the cause of the collision. It is not impossible to use statements made by the defendant as well as the physical evidence to convict in traffic court.

If the officer is trained as a Traffic Collision Investigator pursuant to CVC 40600(a) (and if he issues a cite for CVC 22350 and CVC 22107 without witnessing the event, he is so trained), then he can usually qualify as an expert.

Granted, the guilty plea made it all academic ... but it is not impossible to convict without the other party.

- Carl

[lwpat]

True, but in this case it seems the accident happened elsewhere and the officer was basing the citation on the observations of a witness. He can testify as to statements made by the defendant but not to any statements made by a witness unless that witness is present in court. The fact he was the one who called the police would weigh heavily in his favor.

[cdwjava]

True enough.

- Carl