CVC 22350 Unsafe Speed Orange County (Costa Mesa)

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

I got in an accident almost 2 months ago and also got cited for this. I rear ended the guy. I got cited for 22350 going 20 mph . The limit is 40. The safe speed was 0 mph. Light traffic, clear weather, dry conditions. The light turned yellow and the person in front of me immediately broke and I couldn't break in time. I was about 2 car lengths and kind of assumed he was going to go through the yellow. In fact, I hit him right before the light turned yellow. The impact did not set off any airbags; we were still able to drive our cars off the street to a lot to get a collision report by a policeman who saw the accident from a perpendicular street. Minor rear bumper damage was on the other guy and I had moderate front end damage. We were also able to drive our cars home. The other driver complained of a neck pain (74 year old Caucasian) but decided it was not bad enough to where he needed to get ambulance. I called a few days later and said the pain was not there anymore. On the dmv accident report form, we both decided to not put the injury from the accident down.

Am I able to fight this ticket? I know if I got into an accident, it kind of shows that I was driving unsafely. I honestly did not give the guy that much space because I assumed he was going to go through the yellow. He did not cite me though for not giving enough space because he was at a bad angle. My first accident ever :wallbang:....

You can fight any citation. Whether you win or not is the question.

Since you struck the vehicle in front of you, that will be prima facie evidence of your driving at an unsafe speed. You are obligated to operate your vehicle at a speed safe enough for you to react to sudden changes in traffic conditions such as sudden stops or hazards int he roadway.

You likely have nothing to lose by taking the matter to trial. However, unless the other driver and/or other witnesses are also subpoenaed to court, the officer will not be able to testify as to what the other driver told him. So, he would not likely be permitted to testify how he knew the other vehicle was stopped ... at least, not unless he has some physical evidence that indicates this.

If the officer and other witnesses show, you can always ask for traffic school. Understand that once you take the stand at trial, however, most courts will not permit you to take traffic school. The court certainly can allow it, but they tend not to do so. If you want to try for traffic school, you may want to plead before the trial (before you take the stand on your trial date). Also note that your first hearing shoul dbe your arraignment and not the trial. If you plead not guilty at the arraignment, a trial date should be set for a later date.

- Carl

Oh okay. I was reading up on that earlier... I guess I'll jut pay the fine with traffic school because I can still take traffic school. I suppose it's a fairly minor fine. 212 for the violation and 262 for traffic school. Thank you =D

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Since you struck the vehicle in front of you, that will be prima facie evidence of your driving at an unsafe speed. You are obligated to operate your vehicle at a speed safe enough for you to react to sudden changes in traffic conditions such as sudden stops or hazards int he roadway.

---

Carl,

As you may imagine, I disagree. I don't know of any law that would say striking a car in front of you is prima facie evidence of violating the basic speed law. Maybe you can point me in that direction if one exists.

The statement that it is prima facie evidence simply means that it is assumed to be true, but it is rebuttable. Unless you can provide some statutory or case law that I am not aware of, I think it would be reasonable to assume that the person in front getting hit from behind is prima facie evidence that he violated:

Quote:

---

22400. (a) No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow
speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of
traffic unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation,
because of a grade, or in compliance with law.

---

It would be an assumption at best to say the person in the rear is solely responsible for the accident. Certainly there can be reasonable doubt raised here.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

As you may imagine, I disagree. I don't know of any law that would say striking a car in front of you is prima facie evidence of violating the basic speed law. Maybe you can point me in that direction if one exists.

---

Okay ... what is a SAFE speed to be traveling when about to impact someone?

The courts have routinely seen this as prima facie evidence of unsafe speed. The OP is, of course, free to argue the point.

Quote:

---

The statement that it is prima facie evidence simply means that it is assumed to be true, but it is rebuttable.

---

Of course. I have never said otherwise. But, it does place a heavy burden on the defense. I have yet to see such a defense prevail, but I will admit that I have not witnessed every 22350 court fight as a result of traffic collisions so there may be one or more such victories for the defense out there.

The best defense would be if the witnesses did not show up. Otherwise, the odds are slim ... very slim.

You can assume what you wish, Jim, but the status of the law places the burden squarely on the vehicle traveling behind another vehicle to travel at a speed safe for conditions.

Quote:

---

It would be an assumption at best to say the person in the rear is solely responsible for the accident.

---

Traffic collision reports in CA assign fault to one party. Insurance companies can split fault. In theory both parties CAN be cited for violations. But, the possibility that the driver in front MIGHT have been party to an associated factor (and that's very debatable) does not relieve the driver following behind from driving with due care and at a safe speed for conditions. Since he rear ended a vehicle in front of him, it is pretty clear evidence that he was not operating at a safe enough speed. Plus, the OP admits that he was following closely and making an assumption that the other driver was going to blow through the yellow. The driver in front cannot control the distance between the two vehicles, the driver behind can.

The OP can go to court and try to raise reasonable doubt. I never said it was not possible. But, as the law stands for all practical purposes, rear ending a vehicle in front of you will be prima facie (though, rebuttable) evidence of an unsafe speed.

- Carl

Once again, Carl, you are making legal conclusion that is unsupported. For something to be "prima facie" evidence, that issue must be codified in law or established in case law (i.e. 22351). Just because drivers are routinely convicted of 22350 for rear ending someone, does NOT make that prima facie evidence. Unless there is a statute that does so, the defendant is still presumed to be innocent until convicted. By your interpretation, there could never be a situation where a motorist in front is the cause of a rear end collision. Since you are a LEO, I'd imagine that you have heard of the "swoop and squat" scams where a person pulls in front of you and then purposefully hits the brakes to cause a collision so they can scam your insurance company. Are you suggesting in cases like that there is a presumption of guilt towards the person in back? NO! There is a two car accident and until properly investigated and adjudicated there is no reasonable way to assume one is responsible over the other. That is, unless the cop and court simply are looking for the easy way out of doing their jobs!

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

Once again, Carl, you are making legal conclusion that is unsupported. For something to be "prima facie" evidence, that issue must be codified in law or established in case law (i.e. 22351).

---

Okay.

The fact still remains that courts have opined it as such. Whether there is some case law out there to support that label, I can't say. But, I have been in the courtroom where the attorneys and the court have made that statement. I have neither the desire nor the need to look it up as the fact remains that the defense will bear the greater burden of raising reasonable doubt.

Quote:

---

Since you are a LEO, I'd imagine that you have heard of the "swoop and squat" scams where a person pulls in front of you and then purposefully hits the brakes to cause a collision so they can scam your insurance company. Are you suggesting in cases like that there is a presumption of guilt towards the person in back? NO!

---

There are also specific statutes addressing that, and methods of investigation to address it as well. I never said that every situation of a rear end collision will be the fault of the driver striking from the rear or that the PCF would be 22350. In the OP's situation, it would appear to be the appropriate section to charge, and even based upon the OP's statement he was following too close for conditions, and thus, when the vehicle stopped, was traveling too fast for conditions (stopped traffic).

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Okay.

The fact still remains that courts have opined it as such. Whether there is some case law out there to support that label, I can't say. But, I have been in the courtroom where the attorneys and the court have made that statement. I have neither the desire nor the need to look it up as the fact remains that the defense will bear the greater burden of raising reasonable doubt.


There are also specific statutes addressing that, and methods of investigation to address it as well. I never said that every situation of a rear end collision will be the fault of the driver striking from the rear or that the PCF would be 22350. In the OP's situation, it would appear to be the appropriate section to charge, and even based upon the OP's statement he was following too close for conditions, and thus, when the vehicle stopped, was traveling too fast for conditions (stopped traffic).

- Carl

---

Can you tell me why the OPs guilt is a reasonable assumption, but assuming the person in front is guilty of 22400 is not reasonable??

Because the duty generally falls on the person behind another vehicle to travel at a distance safe enough to safely react to sudden changes.

21703. The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another
vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due
regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the
condition of, the roadway.

The driver of the vehilce following has the additional responsibility as assigned by 217093.

But, the 22350 is a rebuttable presumption and the defendant can raise whatever issues he wants at trial should he wish to do so. The odds are against him, but people sometimes prevail against long odds.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Because the duty generally falls on the person behind another vehicle to travel at a distance safe enough to safely react to sudden changes.

21703. The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another
vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due
regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the
condition of, the roadway.

The driver of the vehilce following has the additional responsibility as assigned by 217093.

But, the 22350 is a rebuttable presumption and the defendant can raise whatever issues he wants at trial should he wish to do so. The odds are against him, but people sometimes prevail against long odds.

- Carl

---

I've read the thread and it does sound like the only real defense here is to show that speed was not a factor in this collision. But there's always the risk of The People attempting to amend the citation at the last moment to VC 21703.

Of course, the officer/witnesses not showing up is probably the best shot at winning this one.