Quote Quoting ai2tman
View Post
Well how can negligent driving be proven if there is no referrance to speed?
I will repeat this ONE MORE TIME! You were NOT charged with speeding. Where, exactly, do you see the word "speed" or "speeding" in the statute?
Quote Quoting ai2tman
View Post
Otherwise, how would I have been endangering anybody/property?
The officer claims to have visually observed you travelling at three times the speed limit. That's just an estimate, but even if was only TWICE the speed limit, I'd like YOU tell me how that does not endanger EVERY person on the road with you? Including your passenger AND YOURSELF?
Quote Quoting ai2tman
View Post
The officer stating that he is "positive" in me driving three times the speed limit has no basis.
The officer's statement is "testimony", which, if accepted (and you would have to find some reason for it not to be accepted), is considered "evidence". The prosecution does NOT need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you committed the infraction. They only need to show, through a "preponderance" of evidence, that it is "more likely than not" that you committed the offense. If you stand up in court and say "I didn't do it", that's also testimony. Guess who's testimony is likely to carry more weight?

As I said, go for a deferral -- because, personally, I think you got off easy. Negligent Driving is still only a traffic infraction, Reckless Driving is a misdemeanor. And RCW 46.61.465 states:
Quote Quoting RCW 46.61.465
The unlawful operation of a vehicle in excess of the maximum lawful speeds provided in this chapter at the point of operation and under the circumstances described shall be prima facie evidence of the operation of a motor vehicle in a reckless manner by the operator thereof.
That's up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine.
Barry