Accident pics/contesting ticket
robert at s-cars.org
Fri Jun 28 09:15:34 EDT 2002
It has seemed to me, Charlie, that the prime requisite to become a local
cop in this area is prior experience as a school yard bully. Perhaps our
friend encountered one of this type of prime example of a small town West
Virginia REO. If so, he is very right to fight the ticket. You are also
right - he may well be risking excessive penalties especially if the judge
is another one of the local school yard bullies made good.
At 07:52 AM 6/28/02, Charlie Smith wrote:
>A couple people have questioned the adequacy of the sign, and where
>is was placed. I sure can't tell from the pictures. Some of that
>probably depends on what's normally used in that part of the country.
>I've seen roads closed due to unmelted snow clear into May in more
>mountainous states like Utah. My earlier comments were based on the
>belief (guess?) that the sign was what's normally used in that locale,
>and the belief (guess?) that entire-winter road closures are normal in that
>area. If that's the case, arguments about adequacy probably won't fly.
>The point of the cop giving someone a ticket for "this ordeal" is that
>it's the cop's job to do that if the cop believes a law / ordinance was
>violated. How big an ordeal the recipient went through doesn't enter
>into it, as far as the cop's area of responsibility. It's up to a court
>to determine if the ordinance was violated, and if more (or any) punishment
>is warranted. That's why they are called a judge.
>My comments about worse things to be cited for than driving on a closed
>road and possible penalties were just pointing out possibilities. If
>someone goes in front of a judge and exhibits a high idiot factor, and
>if the judge doesn't believe the defendant's likely to be deterred from
>doing it (whatever) again, some judges are inclined to "improve" the
>deterrence factors. Especially if the defendant admits to violations
>of other ordinances at the same time. Never say something like "I was
>going too fast to see the sign" ...
>As far as penalties, check your local ordinances on things like reckless
>operation, and drag racing. Those ordinances may well include large fines,
>a large number of points, and possible jail time. That doesn't mean at all
>that those penalties would be imposed in total every time someone was found
>guilty of the offense. It does indicate that whichever governmental body
>passed the ordinance thought it was a serious offense. It's up to the
>judge to determine how much of the penalty to impose.
>Again, if someone goes in front of a judge and exhibits a high idiot factor,
>it's entirely up to the judge. For example, and I'm sure this isn't the
>case here - consider someone that was using an empty mountain road
>for 9/10ths driving practice (and I've done it too), came around a
>blind corner and while braking madly to avoid something like an ice
>covered area flew past the normally used "road closed" sign, and
>ended up off the road. If the person then gets in front of a judge
>and implies the cop is an idiot for writing the ticket, the judge is
>more likely to think stronger deterrence is needed.
>If he really thinks he was not in the wrong, and shouldn't have received
>the ticket, a local attorney is probably an excellent idea.
> - Charlie
>Earlier, Jack Gagnon wrote:
> > Wow Charlie, your take on this is pretty harsh! Jail time? Are you trying
> > to scare the bejesus out of him?
> > What is the point in giving someone a ticket for this ordeal? If you ask
> > me, the cop is an idiot for drawing attention to the inadequate sign. If
> > the sign is deemed inadequate in court, the government agency could
> > be sued by the driver of the car!
> > The signs do not meet MUTCD (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices )
> > standards. If the sign was only 100 feet from the closed section of road
> > and the lettering is inadequate it is quite possible that the driver
> did not
> > have adequate time to slow down before hitting the ice. It does not take a
> > whole lot of speed to roll a car after it has gone over an embankment
> > sideways.
> > There must be more to this story!
> > Jack
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: quattro-admin at audifans.com [mailto:quattro-admin at audifans.com]On
> > Behalf Of Charlie Smith
> > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 5:45 PM
> > To: nicksimc at plu.edu
> > Subject: Re: Accident pics/contesting ticket
> > Earlier, nicksimc at plu.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > I finally got around to scanning some pictures of my April 2 accident.
> > > The ticket I received the next day was for "going down a closed road."
> > > This will be disputed in court at the end of July. How's that for a
> > > to speedy trial?
> > >
> > > Here is the fork in the road. The road to the left was obviously closed
> > > by the snow berm in front of it, and by the sign 100 ft _behind_ the
> > > berm telling you it is closed (far left sign).
> > >
> > > http://www.plu.edu/~nicksimc/road1.jpg
> > >
> > > I went down the road to the right. This pic is of the sign telling you
> > > that the road ahead was closed. It is about 100ft in front of the ice.
> > >
> > > http://www.plu.edu/~nicksimc/road2.jpg
> > >
> > > I never actually saw the sign because I was too busy braking to avoid the
> > > obvious hazard. Unfortunately, I was unable to come to a complete stop
> > > before I reached the ice, and I began sliding across this:
> > I think you are guilty as charged. If you went past a "road closed"
> > sign (road2.jpg) that's the end of the story. The fact that you were
> > going too fast to see it is no excuse. If you told the officer that
> > you "never actually saw the sign because I was too busy braking to
> > avoid the obvious hazard", you are lucky he didn't also cite you for
> > either "too fast for conditions" or "reckless operation".
> > > I am looking for a nice way to say "this is BS" in court. Anyone?
> > I think you'd better pay the ticket and stay out of court if you can.
> > I'm a volunteer police officer in Columbus Ohio. I've seen judges around
> > here that on hearing a story like yours would add the "reckless operation"
> > charge themselves and sock you with a healthy fine. Look up the penalty
> > for reckless ops in your city / state. It may even specify jail time.
> > - Charlie
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.372 / Virus Database: 207 - Release Date: 6/20/02
Robert L. Myers 304-574-2372
Rt. 4, Box 57, Fayetteville, WV 25840 USA WV tag Q SHIP
'95 urS6 Cashmere Grey - der Wunderwagen ICQ 22170244
More information about the quattro