Traffic Accident Leading to a Unsafe Speed Ticket

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: California

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), Again I was going southbound on a 3 lane road in each direction with a median in the middle. A vehicle pulled out of a neighborhood on the right side of the street to go Northbound through oncoming traffic (me and the other cars behind me). I slammed on my brakes and hit the rear left side (bumper) of her vehicle. The total impact movement of her car was maybe 5 feet. Meaning from where I hit her to where she ended up (which was nearly where she was going because I almost missed her) was about 5 feet of space. I continued forward holding the brakes still and left a few feet more of skids as out of fear I may have been pushing the gas and brake at the same time and pulled to the side of the road.

A gang of motorcycle cops appeared and started harassing me, stating that from the skid mark they could tell I was driving at an EXTREMELY high rate of speed. (I may have been going 10-15 mph above the speed limit but flow traffic permitted it and no pedestrians were present anywhere). The officers did the usual finger to eye test to make sure I was not under any substance which I passed with flying colors of course. They never asked once if I was hurt or needed any medical assistance, even though my vehicle was in MUCH worse condition then hers, hers being drivable and only having minimal rear body damage.

As I stated what happened and how I believed it was her fault for turning out of a neighborhood through traffic to go the opposite direction, one of the officers (the one who actually wrote the ticket I guess) stated "By the time the ink from my pen dries I'm gonna make sure its your fault". Also yelling at me and stating that I am the reason people get killed and whatnot.

This is all at 8:00pm and it is pretty dark out. The officers do the walk with their measuring device and then state that there is over 400 ft of skid marks (Which I contest and asked them to walk it again with me there, they deny and state they don't want to do it again)

all this being said I leave and await my fate... 2 days later I get the ticket in the mail, Unsafe Speed. 100mph+, Failure to yield to traffic, and a window tint ticket, all which are infractions..

My question now that the details have been given, is what can I do to protest this? I was NOT going 100mph + and I have been back to the accident scene the skid marks are NO WHERE NEAR 400ft long, they look to be maybe 200 if that. Which I read equals to a speed equivalent to which I said about 70-80mph. What can I do? Is it not her fault? Was she not supposed to yield?

Please let me know what I can do and if I have any rights here, the officers did harass me yelling and again never asking if I once needed any assistance.

Also they didn't give me the ticket there and I never signed anything the ticket where my signature should be states
Thomas 40600CVC
Which i read to be a Traffic Collision course the officers must take?

Please let me know


Also, will I get a ticket in the courtesy notice in the mail stating how much I owe, or do I need to appear in court? Do I need a lawyer? It is only an infraction right, so the worse that could happen would be a fine? Please I am very nervous about this any help is much appreciated.

Thanks

You left a 200+ skid mark? Think of a football field, you are 2/3's of a way to a touchdown. At 400 ft you can slap on the end zones and still have yardage left over.

If you must speed, don't pick the one where there is cross traffic. People at those stop signs can assume traffic on the cross street (your street) is traveling at or near the speed limit, not 30 over. I say the collision is hands down your fault, no denying that.

The officer method of speed calculation is critical in determining your speed. The officer who did the calculations should be the equivelent of an accident reconstruction officer. Roadway surface type, grade, weather, lenght of skid and other factors can effect simple speed by skid calculations. At 400 feet, by basic calculations are around 95-98 MPH, thats with dry asphalt conditions, no grade, ect.

You should probably go back and measure the skids as best you can. If they are 400 feet or less you can use some online skid speed calculators and print out the results to raise reasonable doubt. You were charged with exceeding 100MPH. The officer needs to prove that you were in excess. That's why it is crucial you know how long your skids were.

On a side note, 528 feet = .1 mile

I can accept that the accident is my fault, as I was going to fast. But what I do not get is why I was charged with Yield to Traffic. Also, the officer did not look at the tire tread or brake wear while making his assumptions.

My real question was what is going to happen?

Do I need to appear in court or will I get a notice stating what I owe?

What is the most I will have to pay? Is it going to be in the thousands or in the hundreds? Any advice please

Thank You

ok so I took pictures of the skid marks and did some gps coordinated measurements and I got between 211-256 Feet. My insurance company has advised me to try to fight the tickets.

My question is what do I need to do? My court date is on the 28th. The police report states 483 feet of skid marks but there is ABSOLUTELY no way that is true I did aerial photos and measurements and for it to be 483 feet it would have to been down 200+ feet longer nearly to the next light.

How do I ask for an amended police report? What are my chances with this evidence of beating this?

Any help

Thanks

You're going to have a really well-prepared argument in order to prove that the officer's was off by that much. 100mph+ is a major violation, and you'd be looking at a near-guaranteed lic suspension and a $500-$2000 fine if the cops convince the court that you were, in fact, speeding over 100. Again, there's a pretty wide spread between the best and the worst case scenario, but the worst-case scenario looks pretty grim for you. I'd seriously consider hiring a GOOD traffic attorney and be open to pleading the whole thing down to a single count of VC22350 (be sure to plead no contest rather than guilty if the judge gives you the option). Suing the stupid broad who made the suicidal left turn isn't out of question, either. The person making a left turn has to yield to the through traffic, anyway.

I'd also find out if it's possible to get in touch with the ofc who did the original investigation and see if they'd listen - or at least drive by the scene during daytime and check the skidmarks one more time.

ok, my last question is this then. Whatever the outcome shall be, will I be able to pay payments or will I be mandated to pay all at once or suffer something else? Please let me know thank you.

Quote:

---

Quoting tmead0123

---

ok, my last question is this then. Whatever the outcome shall be, will I be able to pay payments or will I be mandated to pay all at once or suffer something else? Please let me know thank you.

---

Depending on jurisdiction, they will likely grant you a time period in which to pay the balance in total (30, 60, 90 days or something), but I do not believe any (or, at least, not many) courts allow payment plans.

- Carl

Exactly which VC sections were you charged with?? I agree with you that the other vehicle should have been charged with the accident for failure to yield.


Did he make any notes about the grade? Did he measure grade? That would have an effect on the speed estimate. What type of vehicle were you driving? If your car was one of the vehicles on this list, you may be able to argue that the cop had access to specific information regarding your speed. However, he chose to use a much less accurate method.

Actually, Jim, they may not have had access to the data on the vehicle computer. Recent case law has indicated that a search warrant is required to access these systems, and search warrants will not generally issue for a traffic infraction.

They will issue for ...

(1) When the property was stolen or embezzled.
(2) When the property or things were used as the means of committing a felony.
(3) When the property or things are in the possession of any person with the intent to use it as a means of committing a public offense, or in the possession of another to whom he or she may have delivered it for the purpose of concealing it or preventing its being discovered.
(4) When the property or things to be seized consist of any item or constitute any evidence that tends to show a felony has been committed, or tends to show that a particular person has committed a felony.
(5) When the property or things to be seized consist of evidence that tends to show that sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of Section 311.3, or possession of matter depicting sexual conduct of a person under the age of 18 years, in violation of section 311.11, has occurred or is occurring.
(6) When there is a warrant to arrest a person.
(7) When a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service has records or evidence, as specified in Section 1524.3, showing that property was stolen or embezzled constituting a misdemeanor, or that property or things are in the possession of any person with the intent to use them as a means of committing a misdemeanor public offense, or in the possession of another to whom he or she may have delivered them for the purpose of concealing them or preventing their discovery.

A search warrant for data in an infraction investigation is not covered and is not going to be issued.

The statutes on these devices originated in 2004 and are found in CVC 9950 et seq.

But, nothing prevents the defendant from retrieving and using that information on his own behalf to challenge the conclusions of the police investigators, but the state is generally prohibited from obtaining that information absent a court order.

- Carl

I was driving a 2005 Nissan altima 2.5s (which ended up being totalled because the body shop wanted to charge 9k for repairs alone, 3k worth of parts... and I couldnt shop around too much going on)

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. I drive past them every single day on the way home and always try to measure on odometer and its not even .1 of a mile or close to .1 so that means its far less then 500 feet. I just really cannot afford an attorney and am pretty much S.O.L on this I do not know what I am going to do, or if I can even do anything at all. My mom has been in and out of the hospital the past month (outlook isnt looking good) so I have alot of stuff to worry about and losing my license would just be the icing on the cake right now. Any advice would be wonderful..

Also the police were completely against me, so asking the officer to drive back by and remeasure is out of the question. Like I stated they were screaming at me and being very rude and told me that "by the time the ink from their pen dried they would make sure it was my fault"

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?

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).

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

Exactly which VC sections were you charged with?? I agree with you that the other vehicle should have been charged with the accident for failure to yield.

---

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


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"

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

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

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

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.

---

I don't disagree, but that is an argument to be made. My point is that the only person to make the argument with is the arbitrator (judge). So, when your "opponent" in an arguement is also the arbitrator, who do you think will win? I say, make a stink. You'll probably loose, but you never win a fight without throwing a punch.


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.

Nope... you didn't read the whole first post:

Quote:

---

I was driving between 75-85mph (not sure the actual speed when I hit the brakes), Again I was going southbound on a 3 lane road in each direction with a median in the middle.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

I teach math at our local college. If you hit any algebra questions that stump you, give me a call!! But you are on your own with the driver's permit!

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

I teach math at our local college. If you hit any algebra questions that stump you, give me a call!! But you are on your own with the driver's permit!

---

I'll keep that in mind! We have a tutor for both older boys (8th and 10th grades) as they seem to be having a tough time with their respective math classes, and I tend to be at work when they get home ... and I don't do so well at teaching it, just solving it. "Can't you see the answer?!"

But, if I come across something that stumps me, I'll drop you a PM. Thanks.

(Is that offer still good even after we "quarrel"?) :D

- Carl

so some advice would be great. What do I do? What should I expect? I am pretty sure now that I will lose any case that I go for so am going to accept whatever they give me *after I try to fight of course*. Whats the process going to be? I goto court the 13th of october, this is the preliminary hearing right? I just say not guilty and then what? Will I have to pay the fine then and there? I am going through very very tough times since the accident as everything bad that could happen has *hospital bills, and other fun stuff*.

Please just let me know what to expect, I know its going to be as you all have stated between $500-$2000 dollars and am trying my best to get ready for that, but what to expect on the 13th?

Please let me know so I can get off this extreme downward spiral i've been on. Actually have been prescribed depression medication since the accident since everything else has happened my doctor was in shock, insisted upon it.

Thomas

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

(Is that offer still good even after we "quarrel"?) :D

- Carl

---

We never quarrel. We just don't always agree.

Quote:

---

Quoting tmead0123

---

so some advice would be great. What do I do? What should I expect? I am pretty sure now that I will lose any case that I go for so am going to accept whatever they give me *after I try to fight of course*. Whats the process going to be? I goto court the 13th of october, this is the preliminary hearing right? I just say not guilty and then what? Will I have to pay the fine then and there? I am going through very very tough times since the accident as everything bad that could happen has *hospital bills, and other fun stuff*.

Please just let me know what to expect, I know its going to be as you all have stated between $500-$2000 dollars and am trying my best to get ready for that, but what to expect on the 13th?

Please let me know so I can get off this extreme downward spiral i've been on. Actually have been prescribed depression medication since the accident since everything else has happened my doctor was in shock, insisted upon it.

Thomas

---

First of all, get things in perspective. It's a traffic ticket... it is NOT the end of the world. I'm sure you got much bigger things in your life that are of real concern.

Next, loose that negative attitude. If you are going to defend yourself, do it with confidence. I don't belive for a second that you are guilty of failure to yield. You should have all the confidence in the world about that. Act like it. I also think you should be able to beat the 22350 if you beat the FTY. If you aren't guilty of FTY, then the other driver failed to yield. So, the accident had nothing to do with your speed causing a danger, rather it was a product of the other guy's failure to yield.

Don't be whinney. Be confident. Organize your thoughts and your plan on how you will cross examine the cop. I'm sure I could easily discredit his testimony. You should be able to also.


BTW, your first appearance is just arraignment. All you will do is plead not guilty.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

First of all, get things in perspective. It's a traffic ticket... it is NOT the end of the world. I'm sure you got much bigger things in your life that are of real concern.

Next, loose that negative attitude. If you are going to defend yourself, do it with confidence. I don't belive for a second that you are guilty of failure to yield. You should have all the confidence in the world about that. Act like it. I also think you should be able to beat the 22350 if you beat the FTY. If you aren't guilty of FTY, then the other driver failed to yield. So, the accident had nothing to do with your speed causing a danger, rather it was a product of the other guy's failure to yield.

Don't be whinney. Be confident. Organize your thoughts and your plan on how you will cross examine the cop. I'm sure I could easily discredit his testimony. You should be able to also.


BTW, your first appearance is just arraignment. All you will do is plead not guilty.

---

First of all, if he pleads not guilty to both, there's a possibility that the cop won't show up and both charges get dismissed for failure to prosecute.

My strategy would be for him to go to the arraignment, plead not guilty to VC21802b, and ask the judge if he could attend traffic school on the VC22350 charge after pleading no contest, because it would the tougher one to beat at trial if the cop shows up - especially when the back of envelope math shows the collision might have been avoided if the OP traveled at 55mph. For what it's worth, VC22351b applies even when charged speeds are in excess of the statutory maximum speed limits as long as the charged statute is VC22350, and there is a chance he could beat it along with the 21802b. Asking for traffic school at arraignment is just a way to mitigate the potential damage if the cop shows up and the judge happens to be a cop-hugger.

As for the 21802b charge:

(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.

Do notice that one of the elements of that statute is that another driver must comply with the provisions of 21802a before entering the intersection. I did a quick search on here, and being struck by another vehicle is prima facie evidence of NOT yielding or 'proceeding with reasonable safety.'

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/show...36&postcount=4
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/show...64&postcount=4

If the prosecution begins to argue about the excess speed, you will have to address that.

So my insurance called me today and stated they have made a preliminary decision and are accepting 75% fault and are going after her insurance company for 25% fault though she said if I can beat any of the tickets the numbers would change greatly and even possibly to 50/50.
Yes I have MUCH MUCH worse things going on that is why I have been prescribed depression medication the ticket is the very minimal thing that is going on, didn't mean to make it seem like it is the worse or even the reason. My grandfather just passed away, and my mother is not far behind, fiance left me, work laying everyone off *not me yet thank god*, just to name a few of the things.

Thank you everyone for the advice I will go into court with 100% confidence as I know I did not do anything to violate the law except for speed.

MY LAST and FINAL QUESTION, is about the third ticket I got which I'm not sure if I ever mentioned, it is a Window Tint ticket *yes the cop even gave me a window tint ticket*, I have the reciept from purchasing the tint that states I received legal % tint in the front. Will that be enough evidence to get me off that one? It does state on the ticket that it is dismisable.

Thomas

Quote:

---

Quoting tmead0123

---

So my insurance called me today and stated they have made a preliminary decision and are accepting 75% fault and are going after her insurance company for 25% fault though she said if I can beat any of the tickets the numbers would change greatly and even possibly to 50/50.
Yes I have MUCH MUCH worse things going on that is why I have been prescribed depression medication the ticket is the very minimal thing that is going on, didn't mean to make it seem like it is the worse or even the reason. My grandfather just passed away, and my mother is not far behind, fiance left me, work laying everyone off *not me yet thank god*, just to name a few of the things.

Thank you everyone for the advice I will go into court with 100% confidence as I know I did not do anything to violate the law except for speed.

MY LAST and FINAL QUESTION, is about the third ticket I got which I'm not sure if I ever mentioned, it is a Window Tint ticket *yes the cop even gave me a window tint ticket*, I have the reciept from purchasing the tint that states I received legal % tint in the front. Will that be enough evidence to get me off that one? It does state on the ticket that it is dismisable.

Thomas

---

Bring the receipt with you to your arraignment and tell the judge you have the recept showing legal tint % (just don't walk to up the bench on your own unless instructed to approach the bench).

Am I wrong?? I thought any tint beyond what the factory puts on was illegal. There is no legal %.

Quote:

---

Quoting tmead0123

---

MY LAST and FINAL QUESTION, is about the third ticket I got which I'm not sure if I ever mentioned, it is a Window Tint ticket *yes the cop even gave me a window tint ticket*, I have the reciept from purchasing the tint that states I received legal % tint in the front. Will that be enough evidence to get me off that one? It does state on the ticket that it is dismisable.

---

Earlier you stated:

Quote:

---

Quoting tmead0123

---

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

---

But I'll go by your most recent post...

In California, and if its after market tint, its illegal. So to get it dismissed, you'll have to remove the tint and get the citation signed off by either the CHP, the Sheriff or the local PD, pay the admin fee of $25 (instead of the full fine) and have it dismissed.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

Am I wrong?? I thought any tint beyond what the factory puts on was illegal. There is no legal %.

---

You're right Jim. It is legal to sell tint and install it on a customer's vehicle but it's NOT legal to drive with tinted windows.

I think the OP mis-read/misunderstood the disclaimer on his receipt.

no I have just been pulled over for tint before and know what the fine is. I dont have the car anymore, so dismissable? cars destroyed now lol was totalled and then crushed LOL