Careless Driving in Ontario

[mac65]

I've only had my G2 for a month, and one night I was driving home from my friends house in the pouring rain. It was the first time I had driven in the rain, and I had a friend with me (who I was taking home). As I came down a small hill, with a curve at the bottom, I felt my wheels slip a little. I had never been in that situation before, and I panicked. I saw two lights (which turned out to be lamp lights on each side of a driveway) and I thought they were head lights, so I swerved in the opposite direction. The van then started to spin to the right, and then back to the left before my back end hit a street light. The pole was damaged, as was the rear of my car. The next day an officer at the scene measured out the "skid marks" and said I was swerving for 173 ft, and going 80 km/h. This is ridiculous as a)the only tire marks that can clearly be identifyed as mine start about 20 ft from the lamp I hit, after that I was driving in the centre of my lane, so my tracks are indistinguishable from those of other vehicles, and b) I came from the house about 100 ft from the first skid mark the officer says was mine, so it would have been very hard for me to be going 80 km/h. Also, I did not apply the brakes while swerving, so going 80 km/h into a pole would have done much more damage than what was done. Well, I got a Careless Driving charge and am taking it to court. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks.

[blewis]

Take plenty of pictures from all angles. You can try to prove that it's unlikely that your skid marks extend the full 173 feet (not meters?) that the officer measured. If you have bald tires, take a picture of those, as well. You might want to do an internet search for the formulae involved in evaluating skid marks. I saw them several years ago, but can't remember where. There are all kinds of factors like tire composition, road surface, tread, etc. Make sure the officer's computations conform to those criteria. If they don't, you may be able to get his testimony thrown out, probably resulting in a dismissal.

Good luck,
Barry

[mac65]

Just to add some more info on my accident:
The "skid marks" I spoke of are not the black tire marks where rubber has been burned and can be seen on the pavement, they are just tracks that are a lighter shade than the rest of the pavement. They were from my tires taking off some of the pebbles in the road as I slid sideways, not the kind of skidmarks that are from slamming on the brakes. The officer only has notes as evidence, as far as I know, no pictures and no witnesses. Also, I'm looking to get the ticket dismissed all together, not just to get a lesser charge. I should've braked to take the curve, but I didn't. This was a momentary lapse of judgement, and inexperience...not careless driving. Please help!

[Bookm]

You should read Section 130. of the Highway Traffic Act.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/S...08_e.htm#BK191

I'm pretty sure the charge is applicable (not lecturing, just saying). You actually HIT a pole and caused damage. I don't even know of a "lesser" charge that applys. Accidents happen every day due to "momentary lapses of judgement", which is, pretty much, the definition of Careless. I don't think the skid marks are relevant at all. You might want to run it by a local lawyer before your court date.

Book

[blewis]

The officer is going to testify that according to his/her measurements, you were travelling at 80 kph -- way too fast for existing conditions. Thus, "careless driving". The first thing you must do is disprove his/her assessment. Take lots of pictures. Measure the distance from the house to where the officer says your skid marks start. Show that it was highly unlikely that you could have accelerated to 80 kph in 100 feet or so.

Take pictures of where YOU say your skid marks appear. Show that it was just the last 20 feet or so before hitting the pole.

According to the law that Bookm posted, a careless driver is one "who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention". Your contention must be that it was INEXPERIENCE not CARELESSNESS that resulted in your having an accident.

Once you show that you were, indeed, driving at a reasonable speed -- not 80 kph -- and that, due to your inexperience at driving in the rain, you panicked and overreacted when your wheels slipped, thus causing your car to strike the pole. You were driving carefully, you were paying attention, however, you simply didn't know how to handle a situation with which you were unfamiliar.

Talking about these situations in driving school is one thing, but experiencing them first hand can be something else entirely. I know, I had a similar experience when I first started driving. You think you're prepared, but when that rear end starts leading you down the street and you're looking over your shoulder to see where you're going, it's a whole new ballgame.

I think, if you have a reasonable judge, and can disprove the 80 kph assertion, you've got a decent chance.

Barry