Traffic Accident Leading to a Unsafe Speed Ticket

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

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.

---

Well, the calculators used to approximate speed would not be based on "rotating tires prior to lock up" or "shadow trails". To conclude that the OPs speed was 100+, there would have to be real skid marks for 481 feet.


I agree with you that the cop was reaching on the failure to yield. However, if I were the OP, I would challenge the cop on the 22350 as well. I think the cop's statement of

Quote:

---

"party 2 was unable to judge party 1's distance because of party 1's extremely high rate of speed"

---

...is highly speculative at best. There could have been a hundred reasons why "car 2" did not properly judge car 1's distance ranging from car 2 wasn't paying attention to car 2's driver was blind in one eye. For the cop to make that conclusion based only on one piece of evidence (a poorly interpreted piece of evidence at that) is nothing less than an incomplete and shoddy investigation. Furthermore, to be picky, 21802 says the person entering the intersection has to yield... period. It doesn't say that that person has to yield, unless the crossing traffic is driving too fast.

This is very comparable to the rear-end collisions we have discussed. Your opinion, as shared by many courts, is that the person in the rear must adjust speed to give adequate room between themselves and the car in front... it does not suggest that this is not a requirement if the car in front stops too quickly. So, the assertion that the person pulling into the intersection is absolved of responsibility because of the speed of crossing traffic is inconsistent.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

Well, the calculators used to approximate speed would not be based on "rotating tires prior to lock up" or "shadow trails". To conclude that the OPs speed was 100+, there would have to be real skid marks for 481 feet.

---

That's why they are used to estimate a minimum speed. If the wheels were rotating, the speed would generally be higher than the minimum estimated speed. ALL skid marks can be relevant to a determination of speed. His defense would be better applied arguing the lack of existence of those excess skid marks not the type of skid marks. Arguing that they were rolling wheel skid might not play into his favor. Without my seeing the skid, I can't tell you how they should play into the matter, but the type of skid is less likely to favor him than it is to strengthen a case for his speeding.

But, still, we come back to the 211' that the OP admits to. This, by itself, would indicate a 70 MPH speed (minimum). THAT is where he is going to be hit. The 22350 does not hinge on the PCF, it hinges on the proof of an unsafe speed. He needs to fight this as he would a normal 22350 ... except that he is likely unable to argue that his speed was safe and prudent for conditions since a crash occurred.

- Carl

stated again, I do not expect to beat the 22350, I do wish for it to be negated to the lower charge as I read in the statues that there are 3 breakdowns one for 0-15mph one for 15-25mph and one for 25mph and over the speed limit. They are obviously going to try to stick me with the third bracket which is just false. I was traveling around 70mph YES i have admitted that in previous posts and WILL admit it to the court if needed. I was not traveling at 100mph and actually never if RARELY ever do travel anywhere near that fast. The party turning out of the neighborhood had a stop sign I was on the oncoming traffic like I stated. No stop signs no lights clear traffic. The other party did have a slightly blocked view *from cars parked on the side of the road* so would I be able to use that as my defense for the failure to yield? I Did also read that the vc says party must yield to oncoming traffic pretty much no ifs ands or buts so how could they just go ahead and add "unless the other party is going to fast", and in all actuality if I wanted to be a jackass about it I did yield, I yielded to the point of barely coliding with her LOL Yield and Stop is completely different i thought :)

One last question also, I've been reading alot about deferrals. Do they offer a deferral program in california? What are the chances I will be able to get the unsafe speed ticket deferred? I know very slim if any but is there even a .01% chance? meaning it is possible but not likely. Also that is if I can convice them to realise the truth which is I was not going 100mph+

Quote:

---

Quoting tmead0123

---

One last question also, I've been reading alot about deferrals. Do they offer a deferral program in california? What are the chances I will be able to get the unsafe speed ticket deferred? I know very slim if any but is there even a .01% chance? meaning it is possible but not likely. Also that is if I can convice them to realise the truth which is I was not going 100mph+

---

I have never heard of a deferral in a traffic offense, but I suppose such a program might exist somewhere. You can always ask.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting tmead0123

---

One last question also, I've been reading alot about deferrals. Do they offer a deferral program in california?

---

Deferrals are offered in Washington State... possibly Oregon. In California, we have "traffic School".

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

That's why they are used to estimate a minimum speed. If the wheels were rotating, the speed would generally be higher than the minimum estimated speed.

---

Carl, I am not a traffic accident trained officer, I am just a dumb mechanical engineer. But, I am smart enough to recognize that the laws of physics are self enforcing. So, if a car locks all of its tires and skids, it will stop quicker than if its tires skids, rolls, skids and rolls. I am making the assumption that when the tires roll, they are not at maximum braking before a skid. The reason I am making that assumption is that is the only reasonable assumption to make. With no skid marks, there is no way to assume what the level of braking was at the time. Therefore, if a full skid stops quicker than a skid, roll, skid, roll (SRSR), then for equal length marks, the SRSR would have to be at a slower speed! I think your version is exactly opposite of reality.

Quote:

---

His defense would be better applied arguing the lack of existence of those excess skid marks not the type of skid marks.

---

I agree. With such a tremendous disparity in skid lengths, I would definitely take in pictures that prove the cop to be wrong in an attempt to challenge his credibility and show he had an obvious bias when writing the ticket.

Quote:

---

Arguing that they were rolling wheel skid might not play into his favor. Without my seeing the skid, I can't tell you how they should play into the matter, but the type of skid is less likely to favor him than it is to strengthen a case for his speeding.

---

Still questionable.

Quote:

---

But, still, we come back to the 211' that the OP admits to. This, by itself, would indicate a 70 MPH speed (minimum). THAT is where he is going to be hit. The 22350 does not hinge on the PCF, it hinges on the proof of an unsafe speed. He needs to fight this as he would a normal 22350

---

Agree. And here is an interesting twist... since the OP was written for 22350 and there was a prima facie speed limit and his speed was determined using an electronic device used to measure speed of moving objects (i.e. a computer with a skid/speed estimating program), wouldn't a speed trap defense be viable?

Quote:

---

... except that he is likely unable to argue that his speed was safe and prudent for conditions since a crash occurred.

- Carl

---

It will first be the burden of the prosecution to prove that his speed was unsafe. Also, it will be the burden of the prosecution to prove that a speed trap did not exist.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

Carl, I am not a traffic accident trained officer, I am just a dumb mechanical engineer. But, I am smart enough to recognize that the laws of physics are self enforcing. So, if a car locks all of its tires and skids, it will stop quicker than if its tires skids, rolls, skids and rolls. I am making the assumption that when the tires roll, they are not at maximum braking before a skid. The reason I am making that assumption is that is the only reasonable assumption to make. With no skid marks, there is no way to assume what the level of braking was at the time. Therefore, if a full skid stops quicker than a skid, roll, skid, roll (SRSR), then for equal length marks, the SRSR would have to be at a slower speed! I think your version is exactly opposite of reality.

---

The rolling skid are added to the locked wheel skid and all are added into the calculation to help determine the MINIMUM speed of the vehicle at the time of impact. The speed of a vehicle with rolling wheels, whether it be a skip or yaw skid, is going to be at least as great as that of a locked wheel skid, assuming a dry, level, asphalt paved roadway. The skid is an indicator of when the stopping action was initiated and any skid associated with the vehicle in motion can be taken into account. If one wants to argue that a rolling wheel skid if slower then locked wheel skid, but that the vehicle sped up 200' later when the wheels locked up, they can try.

Quote:

---

I agree. With such a tremendous disparity in skid lengths, I would definitely take in pictures that prove the cop to be wrong in an attempt to challenge his credibility and show he had an obvious bias when writing the ticket.

---

The problem would be that the images of any "shadow" skid may have been difficult to take even on the day of the impact. Some days or weeks later, they are very likely to have disappeared.

Skids can be a very frustrating thing to photograph. The angle has to be just so, the lighting has to be just so, and you have to have a camera that can effectively capture the low level of contrast lest you be forced to enhance the image in som way - and that makes for very iffy evidence at trial.

But, pictures and measurements of that skid which IS available could help to establish reasonable doubt for the 400'+ skid, anyway.

Quote:

---

Agree. And here is an interesting twist... since the OP was written for 22350 and there was a prima facie speed limit and his speed was determined using an electronic device used to measure speed of moving objects (i.e. a computer with a skid/speed estimating program), wouldn't a speed trap defense be viable?

---

Not likely. Most investigators using a scale that is printed on a straight edge or a template to match skid, coefficient, and speed. Besides, I don't think a court is going to find that a calculator is what the legislature intended by that law. It would be a novel approach, but I doubt it would work.

Quote:

---

It will first be the burden of the prosecution to prove that his speed was unsafe. Also, it will be the burden of the prosecution to prove that a speed trap did not exist.

---

Neither would be all that difficult unless the officers go in assuming a slam dunk and fail to lay a foundation, and the defense is prepared to argue the improperly posted speed. But, should the speed have been properly posted at 45 or 55, then the defense would have to show that his speed was safe for the conditions, and the existence of the collision would be pretty good proof that it was not.

I would think that arguing the posting of the speed to be his best bet, but, given that he was going at LEAST 70, and the max. posted speed it could be on a city or county road (assuming this is not also a state highway) is going to likely by 55 MPH, I am not sure how that will play out.

I'm off to the office now, or I'd look into that a little more. I am not sure how it might work for a speed trap defense when the max. speed the road could be posted at is still at least 15 MPH below the speed the OP was traveling. Maybe later ... I'm in for a short day ... paperwork and a press release. What fun.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

The rolling skid are added to the locked wheel skid and all are added into the calculation to help determine the MINIMUM speed of the vehicle at the time of impact. The speed of a vehicle with rolling wheels, whether it be a skip or yaw skid, is going to be at least as great as that of a locked wheel skid, assuming a dry, level, asphalt paved roadway. The skid is an indicator of when the stopping action was initiated and any skid associated with the vehicle in motion can be taken into account. If one wants to argue that a rolling wheel skid if slower then locked wheel skid, but that the vehicle sped up 200' later when the wheels locked up, they can try.

---

Well, my appologies if I misunderstood. You are talking about a higher speed at the point of impact. I was talking about the speed at the beginning of the skid. With that clarification, I think we are both in agreement.

Quote:

---

The problem would be that the images of any "shadow" skid may have been difficult to take even on the day of the impact. Some days or weeks later, they are very likely to have disappeared.

Skids can be a very frustrating thing to photograph. The angle has to be just so, the lighting has to be just so, and you have to have a camera that can effectively capture the low level of contrast lest you be forced to enhance the image in som way - and that makes for very iffy evidence at trial.

---

I agree... and this is where CA really screws the defendant. The defendant will argue that the pics of the skid are valid, but who argues that they are not? Our judicial system is intended to be an adverserial system where two sides argue their position and a mediator (i.e. a judge or a jury) makes a determination. So, in this case, who argues for the people? Who is there to challenge the validity of the pictures? NO ONE!!! So, inherently, the judge becomes the prosecutor that the defendant has to argue against. That is just wrong and if I were the defendant, I would object to the judge taking a prosecutorial role if he did not accept my pictures on their face.

Quote:

---

Not likely. Most investigators using a scale that is printed on a straight edge or a template to match skid, coefficient, and speed. Besides, I don't think a court is going to find that a calculator is what the legislature intended by that law. It would be a novel approach, but I doubt it would work.

---

I agree... it is a wild stretch, but sometimes you just have to swing for the fence.

Quote:

---

Neither would be all that difficult unless the officers go in assuming a slam dunk and fail to lay a foundation, and the defense is prepared to argue the improperly posted speed. But, should the speed have been properly posted at 45 or 55, then the defense would have to show that his speed was safe for the conditions, and the existence of the collision would be pretty good proof that it was not.

---

concur.

Quote:

---

I would think that arguing the posting of the speed to be his best bet, but, given that he was going at LEAST 70, and the max. posted speed it could be on a city or county road (assuming this is not also a state highway) is going to likely by 55 MPH, I am not sure how that will play out.

---

I think the OP was on a multi lane highway, so the max speed was 65.

Quote:

---

I'm off to the office now, or I'd look into that a little more. I am not sure how it might work for a speed trap defense when the max. speed the road could be posted at is still at least 15 MPH below the speed the OP was traveling. Maybe later ... I'm in for a short day ... paperwork and a press release. What fun.

- Carl

---

Have fun at work!

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

That is just wrong and if I were the defendant, I would object to the judge taking a prosecutorial role if he did not accept my pictures on their face.

---

But, as the trier of fact, he can evaluate their value as he wishes even if no counter argument is made. The judge can determine that the images do not show what the defense claims they show much the same as a jury can dismiss a defense or prosecution argument/witness/evidence.

Quote:

---

I think the OP was on a multi lane highway, so the max speed was 65.

---

I seem to recall he was on a local highway.

"I had just left work and was driving southbound on beach blvd in huntington beach. The speed limit varies on the road from 50-55 and even to 60mph further northbound.

I was driving between 75-85mph (not sure the actual speed when I hit the brakes)"

I would be surprised to see the 60 MPH determination, but I am not sure of the rules when local highways might be bumped above 55 MPH.

Quote:

---

Have fun at work!

---

Back now. Just culling activity logs and dealing with some little brush fires (none remotely related to traffic). Now I am at home, and kids are coming home (early day at school ... in-service day). So, I get to deal with algebra and science homework ... and, later, I get to take my oldest son to take the written test for his driver's permit - Heaven help me! :eek:

- Carl