Found At Fault for an Accident, RCW 46.61.400 Citation Received
I came to a stop behind another vehicle at a light. The person in front of me released the break but did not move forward and I did not respond timely resulting in rear ending the vehicle in front of me. The police were called to prepare a collision report..
A week later I received a ticket RCW 46.61.400 Speed too fast for Conditions.
This accident occured very little to low speed. The car I rear ended received paint transfer and scratches on the bumper. My car recieved some damage.
From what I am reading, it makes no sense why I would be issued a ticket for for Speed too fast for Conditions.
I have mailed in for a court date.
Should I mitigagte or contest?
What should I say or not say?
I read in another forum that as long as the other driver does not appear it is unlikely to be convicted the witness must be present... Is this true?
Any guidance or help would be much appreciated!
Thank you!
Re: Found At Fault for an Accident, RCW 46.61.400 Citation Received
When you are driving too quickly to come to a full stop without hitting an object or vehicle that is in front of your car, the reasoning is this: If you were operating at a safe speed, you would have been able to react in a timely manner and come to a stop. As you weren't, you speed was "too fast" for the conditions (i.e., being on the road with the vehicle or object that particular distance from your front bumper).
Re: Found At Fault for an Accident, RCW 46.61.400 Citation Received
I was at a complete stop behind the other vehicle. The vehicle released their breaks but did not move forward. I litteraly went from release break, gas, to break...
Therefore, I was not driving to quickly to come to a full stop, I was at a full stop. Then the vehicle in front of me released their breaks... but did not move... I responded with my breaks immediately. Is there no way to explain that I did not break this law?
Either way, if the other driving doesn't arrive at court, and I contest... will they not be able to convict me?
Re: Found At Fault for an Accident, RCW 46.61.400 Citation Received
If you are stopped behind another car, ZERO is the maximum safe speed. What makes you think the prosecutor needs the other driver for a witness?
Re: Found At Fault for an Accident, RCW 46.61.400 Citation Received
You assumed that the vehicle would accelerate more quickly than it did, and you accelerated into the back of the car. It's not safe to accelerate toward stationary vehicles that are a short distance away from you, even if the driver removes his foot from the brake.
Re: Found At Fault for an Accident, RCW 46.61.400 Citation Received
Quote:
Quoting
flyingron
If you are stopped behind another car, ZERO is the maximum safe speed. What makes you think the prosecutor needs the other driver for a witness?
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102419
Please see the above link.... Blewis Senior Member mentioned the following:
BTW, in order to get a conviction, the witnesses MUST be present at the hearing (do NOT subpoena them yourself). If they are, a good lawyer should be able to establish that they do not have the requisite training to "visually estimate" your son's speed. Actually, the ONLY time I've seen third party witnesses at an infraction hearing was when the defendant was "at fault" for an accident, and the witnesses wanted to make sure the defendant was convicted for insurance purposes.
- - - Updated - - -
Basically, there is no defense here...
Then I should mitigate and ask for a deferral...?
I have not had one in seven years and I do not have a CDL..
Re: Found At Fault for an Accident, RCW 46.61.400 Citation Received
Much as I have the utmost respect for Mr. BLewis. You still didn't bother to answer my question. In YOUR case, there is prima facie evidence int he observation of you plowed into the hapless souls car. They don't need any witness to explain your behavior.
Re: Found At Fault for an Accident, RCW 46.61.400 Citation Received
My response to WHY I believed the prosecutor needs the other driver for a witness was based off my interpretation of Mr. BLewis's post. Therefore, I did indeed answer your question.
I am only trying to educate myself and get guidance on how I should address this situation... I am hoping to some how mitigate my human nature (Human nature being one of making mistakes) that has placed me in this unfortunate situation. It has been well over 10 years since I have had a traffic incident.
Is there any advice you can give me to mitigate this very expensive mistake?
I know understand that I broke this law. Can I request a deferral?
Any advice would be much appreciated!
Re: Found At Fault for an Accident, RCW 46.61.400 Citation Received
Agree. No one needs to estimate anything about your speed. If you had ANY speed that caused your vehicle to touch a non-moving vehicle in front of you, it was too much. Even 1/10 MPH is "speed".
Re: Found At Fault for an Accident, RCW 46.61.400 Citation Received
They don't need an estimate of speed when the facts indicate that any speed above 0 MPH would be unsafe. When you drive into the back of a vehicle that is not moving, and your excuse is "Their brake lights went off, so I accelerated even though they weren't moving," you're not going to have much luck convincing the court that your exceedingly gentle pressure on the accelerator resulted in your rear-ending the car at a safe speed.
Also, many people who are in accidents make self-incriminating statements to the officer - those are admissible through the officer and are often sufficient, of themselves, to support a conviction.
The other thread involved a witness statement that the driver appeared to be going "too fast". That's not the officer's observation and it's not an admission of the driver, so if the prosecutor wanted to introduce that statement over the defendant's objection he would need to produce the witness in court. Totally different situation.