Traffic Accident Leading to a Unsafe Speed Ticket

Is it possible that the officer was using a thermal imager to find skidmarks that are not easily seen with naked eye? http://www.leta.org/HotSpot/traffic-...stigations.htm I'll let cdw comment on that.

Looking at your charges, the one bit of good news is that you are charged with VC22350 (one point + ~$500 fine), rather than 22348A (which is 2 points + possible 30 day susp). This means you won't NEED an attorney for this one. Assuming you clear the tinted windows thing (you do have photos of the car showing no tint, right?), taking traffic school for one violation and pleading guilty to other will land you with approximately $700 worth of fines and one point on your DMV record. Unless you can convincingly dispute the officer's conclusion of 100mph+ speed, I'd do the above.

I won't spend the time to retype all the information regarding VC22350 cites issued after an accident. If you search through the forum, cdw and many others have excellent posts on this subject.

As far as the failure to yield charge is concerned, there are two components to it - part a states that the entering veh must yield before entering, and part b requires other vehicles to yield to a veh that has entered an intersection in compliance with part a. In your case, the allegation is that party 2 complied with part a, with the inability to accurately judge the distance chalked up to the speed of your vehicle. Beating that charge would require proving that the other driver didn't yield the right of way per VC21802A.

All in all, I'd say you have an okay shot at beating those charges if you learn fast and are willing to put in around 20-40hours into boning up on the law and putting together a quality defense.

Well, I did some quick research, and unfortunately I'm not so sure you have a defense for the 22350 charge anymore.

Is your car equipped with ABS? Looking at http://www.jbcarpages.com/nissan/altima/2005/specs/ and a couple of other sites, an Altima of 2005 vintage does a 60-0 panic stop in about 130 feet. What was the distance between the start of the skidmarks and the point where you struck the other vehicle? Unless the distance from the beginning of the skidmarks to the point of impact is close to 130ft, your chances of beating the VC22350 charge (speed too fast for conditions) are pretty bleak.

the total distance from where the skid marks start and where I struck the vehicle are between 150-175 feet.

I never expected to be able to beat the unsafe speed ticket, I was speeding I will admit that and I will take the ticket, NO WAY was I GOING 100mph + though that is just ridiculous.

and also that braking distance is for the v6 with much nicer disc brakes then what I had. :)

*ventilated at that

Quote:

---

Quoting tmead0123

---

There is 0 grade on the road. The Skid marks are between 211-267 feet depending on if you measure or use gps or both I absolutely do not know how the cop got 481 feet that is absolutely absurd.

---

While there is no way for me to know how the officer might have concluded there was 481' of skid, not all skid is visible to the untrained eye. There are shadow skids that could be barely available on the pavement ... what most people consider as "skid marks" - and the most obvious - are the locked wheel skid. There are others that are less obvious and can come from hesitation, rotating tires prior to lock-up, and even from slight deviations from a straight line. It is likely that the officer was following such a shadow trail and believed the marks came from your vehicle. If they observed 481 feet, then THAT is why they were so set to believe you were very guilty. That would indicate a speed of in the neighborhood of 105 MPH.

Quote:

---

So cdwjava You are an officer, what grounds did the officer have to say that to me? Would you or any of the men on your force EVER say something like that to someone?

---

I doubt he had any "grounds" to be rude or unprofessional. And while I cannot say what an officer on my department might some day say to someone, I would NOT condone such language, no. I would hope they would not berate anyone like that, but I cannot guarantee that in the heat of the moment an officer would not allow himself or herself to be overcome with such an emotional outburst. Your remedy there is to complain to the agency about the officer's conduct. It may also play to your benefit at trial as it might be used to show that the officer had a predisposition to find you guilty of excessive speed.

However, even with 211' of skid, you are still looking at a speed of about 70 MPH - which is higher than the posted speed limit you previously indicated. At that point, you would have to argue that the speed limit was improperly posted (based upon the survey) or that your speed WAS safe for conditions (the latter argument would likely be a loser because of the crash).

Even if you cannot beat the 22350 charge, you might be able to save yourself a second point on your license if you can convince the DMV hearing officer that the primary collision factor was not yours, but should have, instead, been assigned to the driver who entered into traffic from a side street without yielding until it was safe to proceed.

Quote:

---

Also I found out that my sister in-law who was there afterwords during the whole hooplah from the officers was watching when they measured the skid marks and told me recently that they measured from before the skid marks (as she could see not positive) to where my vehicle actually came to rest, which was about 100 feet past the skid mark end on the side of the road (out of harms way because I didnt want to get hit AGAIN).

---

They would measure that for a factual diagram. However, the skid used to help determine speed would be that amount of skid that existed prior to the point of deviation (where impact was made). Skid after that, if still forward motion with little or no deviation (generally as a result of a glancing blow), might be able to be applied to the total speed, but the math gets fuzzier there. If you had an addition 200' of forward movement after impact, THAT can be a very bad sign for you.

Quote:

---

I am being charged with 22350 Unsafe Speed
26708 Tinted Windows (Which they arent LOL)
21802(b) Failure To Yield

---

Failure to yield to what??

That says that you failed to yield properly at a stop sign ...

A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may
proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other
approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle
entering or crossing the intersection.

Did you stop at a stop sign and then start off again??

Was this on YOUR citation, or could this have been a section applied to the other driver?

Quote:

---

The police report says that "party 2 was unable to judge party 1's distance because of party 1's extremely high rate of speed"

---

That's why the PCF is being applied to you and why you are being charged with the offense. No matter which measurement is correct, you still appear to be in violation of 22350 for traveling at a rate of speed faster than the posted speed limit., Now, the onus falls back upon you to try and show that the speed limit was too low (not going to do much good as the max. limit is likely 55 and you were still about 15 over that) or that your speed WAS safe for conditions (which, based upon the accident) is going to fall flat.

This is going to be a tough road for you. I suspect the best you can hope for is a conviction on the 22350 but, perhaps, an appeal to the DMV to remove the point for being the party most at fault in the crash ... but even that is a long shot.

- Carl

cdw, pay attention :)

He's charged with VC21802(B), not A. In this event, the defendant was required to yield to the vehicle that entered the intersection after yielding per VC21802A

21802. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety.

(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersection.

(c) This section does not apply where stop signs are erected upon all approaches to an intersection.
--------------------------------------
In any case, I think the defendant might have to prove that the speed is lower than the alleged 100mph just to be eligible for traffic school - will the court even grant traffic school for 21802B given the evidence of speed? Otherwise eating 3 points plus the guaranteed insurance hike is gonna hurt.

Quote:

---

Quoting HonkingAntelope

---

cdw, pay attention :)

He's charged with VC21802(B), not A:p

---

That is why I posted the (b) subsection above.

And while I note the section you had highlighted, I have never heard of it being applied to approaching cross traffic for a host of reasons. Largely, because it might effectively negate subsection (a) on its face. "Why, yes, I stopped, and then proceeded when I thought it was safe ... the approaching car was supposed to yield to me." If the standard were that simple, there would be no point in yielding until it is safe to proceed as required by (a) and even by (b).

Plus, traveling too fast to yield to changes in traffic conditions (such as cross traffic, AND in violation of the posted limit) would also be elements of the 22350 violation. I think the officer was reaching.

I would never have applied the 21802(b) section to the approaching driver, and I have yet to come across a traffic investigator that would. Apparently this officer would be the first.

On the other hand, if the violation were among the charges listed in the report and NOT on the OP's citation, it could be that the OP read the report wrong and that was an Associated Factor applied to the other driver.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Plus, traveling too fast to yield to changes in traffic conditions (such as cross traffic, AND in violation of the posted limit) would also be elements of the 22350 violation. I think the officer was reaching.

I would never have applied the 21802(b) section to the approaching driver, and I have yet to come across a traffic investigator that would. Apparently this officer would be the first.

---

I'm a layman, and the statute's wording seems pretty clear in its intent/meaning. My guess would be that it was intended to cover any unexpected changes in traffic after the vehicle enters the intersection.

Obviously, the OP ran into a really ticked off motor cop who knows the vehicle code and was hellbent on creatively writing up the OP for every single statute he could think of.

Quote:

---

Quoting HonkingAntelope

---

I'm a layman, and the statute's wording seems pretty clear in its intent/meaning. My guess would be that it was intended to cover any unexpected changes in traffic after the vehicle enters the intersection.

Obviously, the OP ran into a really ticked off motor cop who knows the vehicle code and was hellbent on creatively writing up the OP for every single statute he could think of.

---

Taken literally, it would contraindicate the (a) subsection, and even half of the (b) subsection. That is why it is not generally applied to the driver not facing a stop sign. At my last collision investigations course, the instructor entered into a pet peeve rant on this and a couple of other sections that contained language that seemed to be contrary to itself or to other sections in the CVC.

And, yes, it seems that the officer was hitting everything he could try. I wouldn't have gone for the 21802(b) section as it allows the matter to become even more subjective than it was originally, and, as I said, it seems to remove any real responsibility for the driver at a stop sign to yield so long as he can can argue that the approaching traffic is required to yield once he has started on his way. if that were the case, we would almost never be able to cite a driver for failing to yield at a stop sign.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Taken literally, it would contraindicate the (a) subsection, and even half of the (b) subsection. That is why it is not generally applied to the driver not facing a stop sign. At my last collision investigations course, the instructor entered into a pet peeve rant on this and a couple of other sections that contained language that seemed to be contrary to itself or to other sections in the CVC.

And, yes, it seems that the officer was hitting everything he could try. I wouldn't have gone for the 21802(b) section as it allows the matter to become even more subjective than it was originally, and, as I said, it seems to remove any real responsibility for the driver at a stop sign to yield so long as he can can argue that the approaching traffic is required to yield once he has started on his way. if that were the case, we would almost never be able to cite a driver for failing to yield at a stop sign.

- Carl

---

Thanks for the insight. Care to share the other sections with similar language? I agree that both of these sections are contradictory and can be used as a defense against each other i.e. a driver cited for VC21802A can claim they actually yielded and proceeded while the other driver failed to yield per VC21802B. In case of OP, the best defense would be to claim that the struck vehicle failed to yield per VC21802A, causing the collision. If I was a vindictive motorcop, I would have cited both drivers in this case! :wallbang:

Quote:

---

Quoting HonkingAntelope

---

Thanks for the insight. Care to share the other sections with similar language? I agree that both of these sections are contradictory and can be used as a defense against each other i.e. a driver cited for VC21802A can claim they actually yielded and proceeded while the other driver failed to yield per VC21802B. In case of OP, the best defense would be to claim that the struck vehicle failed to yield per VC21802A, causing the collision.

---

I'd have to wait until someone else points out the sections ... I don't recall what the others were, but I seem to recall that there were two of them, and they had to do with yielding or turning sections ... if they come to me I'll let you know.

However, the OP is not trying to show that the other party is at fault for the collision, he is trying to defend against a charge of 22350. Even if he could convince a judge that the other driver should have been assigned the PCF as a result of a failure to yield, it won't beat the 22350. Based solely on the OP's measurement of skid marks, he was driving AT LEAST 70 MPH. Even with a speed limit of 55 MPH, that is still well over the posted limit AND the maximum speed limit. This means he has to beat the posting of the speed or argue that his speed was not unsafe for conditions (and the latter argument ain't gonna work).

He CAN save himself a point on his license if he can convince a DMV hearing officer that he should not have been assigned the point for the PCF because the other driver should have been. That's iffy, but doable - especially if a court decides he was "only" going at about 70 MPH. Since he faces two points (one for the citation, one for the collision) that collision point could save him a lot of money.

Personally, I think he is likely to lose both, but, he has a chance at either one. And if he was going 70 MPH, then I would likely have cited the OP for the speed and the other driver for the 21802(a) and found the other driver responsible for the collision. Of course, it IS possible that both drivers have been cited. Though that should be reflected in the report if so.

- Carl