Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/5/2005 10:11:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 10:12:18 AM EDT by Planerench]
The officer reluctantly cited me for failure to yield at a two way stop. Front left fender of other guy's van into the rear left corner of my van. 50MPH zone on the side of the intersection he came from, 35 immediately beyond the intersection. At first glance I thought there was plenty of space.... at second glance, the guy was really comming fast! I estimate that he was doing 60-65MPH and started skidding 1-2 seconds before impact, and never left his lane of travel. Spun my 86 VW Van 270 degrees.

I am willing to admit that I may in fact be at fault. Had I not entered the intersection there would have been no collision. I am curious however how fast the opposing traffic would have to be going before it becomes a mitigating circumstance. I humbly present my case to the hive mind. Planerench out.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 10:13:21 AM EDT
if he was doin 15 over thats reckless driving right?
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 10:15:00 AM EDT
How you going to prove he was traveling too fast in court? You may be right, but the judge won't just take your word for it...

EPOCH
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 10:15:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Planerench:
The officer reluctantly cited me for failure to yield at a two way stop. Front left fender of other guy's van into the rear left corner of my van. 50MPH zone on the side of the intersection he came from, 35 immediately beyond the intersection. At first glance I thought there was plenty of space.... at second glance, the guy was really comming fast! I estimate that he was doing 60-65MPH and started skidding 1-2 seconds before impact, and never left his lane of travel. Spun my 86 VW Van 270 degrees.

I am willing to admit that I may in fact be at fault. Had I not entered the intersection there would have been no collision. I am curious however how fast the opposing traffic would have to be going before it becomes a mitigating circumstance. I humbly present my case to the hive mind. Planerench out.


Keep bees much do ya?
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 10:19:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EPOCH96:
How you going to prove he was traveling too fast in court? You may be right, but the judge won't just take your word for it...

EPOCH



I have been known to assist the local police from the air and assisted in a high speed pursuit of an escaped inmate two days ago from the air. I was returning home from my morning flight. I might get the judge's ear. It is not between the other party and myself, but between me and the judge.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 10:20:06 AM EDT
Whether or not he was speeding, the fail to yield would still apply. If someone is approaching so close that your pulling out causes a crash, you pulled out when you shouldn't have.

There's a standard multiplier (1.47) that you apply to speed in MPH. The result you get is how many feet per second you move at that speed. 50 MPH=73.5 fps, 60 MPH=88.2 fps. Even if he was a football field away, at 50 MPH he'll cover that distance in a hair over 4 seconds. Will your car accelerate, after a turn, and be up to 50 MPH by that time? It's always best to wait.

If you take it to court, unless the other driver and officer fail to show, you'll very likely lose your case.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 10:20:12 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 10:34:20 AM EDT
All you can do is try. No harm in that- maybe the judge will take pity and cut you a break.


Oh, and...



Originally Posted By Planerench:

... Spun my 86 VW Van 270 degrees.





Boy are you going to get shit here for that...
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 10:35:32 AM EDT
I tried that argument once, was told forget it. No way to prove how fast he was going.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 10:52:23 AM EDT
If the guy was skidding, won't the tire marks prove he was speeding? Unless the officer took it into account.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:03:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 11:03:41 AM EDT by jvic]

Originally Posted By DefMan:
If the guy was skidding, won't the tire marks prove he was speeding? Unless the officer took it into account.



Guess that depends how long they are. It is possible to produce skid marks while traveling under the speed limit.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:07:04 AM EDT
Without considering the merits of your possible case, I would say fight it.

Go here:

www.motorists.com

I understand that traffic laws are needed, and that penalties are the only way to enforce them, but I also live near a city where the traffic enforcement is a way of commerce, and enforcement absurdly instituted due to the money involved. Also the manner in which it is done seems to have little to do with public safety... Just my rant...

It seems that 95% of traffic tickets are not contested, and of the 5% that are, a large percentage of them get a reduced penalty of some sort, if not removed completely. This means on simple stats, that if you contest it, your chances are pretty good. It seems to be the case that the system is set up to collect money more than it wants to try cases in court.

Read up on your situation at the above resource and decide what makes sense for you.

Good luck,



Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:09:54 AM EDT
The primary cause of the accident would be failure to yield, with the other driver speeding being a contributing factor.

Pay the ticket.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:21:15 AM EDT
Skid marks alone will not give the speed. Since there was a collision, some of the energy was used up to move, and damage the vehicles that would have created longer skid marks. If you know how far and in which direction the cars moved after impact, and each vehicles weight you could get a speed. A more simple approach would be to do a time study. From the begginning of the skid, back the other car up for 1.6 seconds (accepted reaction time) at the speed limit( mph * 1.47= FPS).
thats where the other driver was when you pulled into his lane. now bring him back foward at the speed limit. Take the amount of time in seconds that it takes you to enter the roadway. Would the collision have still occoured? Unfortunatly, no matter how in depth you reconstruct the scene, the question remains.

Sir, if you saw this car, and you saw that it was speeding, why did you pull out in front of it?

If you didnt see it you were wrong, If you did not properly judge its speed, you were wrong.

Good Luck, Stay Safe.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:58:33 AM EDT
If someone crashed into you because you went into the intersection then its your fault.

Were I on a jury I would convict.

I would not convict someone going 70 in a 50 provided as long as they arent driving dangerously to those around them.

Speeding isnt dangerous, not paying attention is dangerous.

IMO you were the one who was not paying attention, you caused the problem, you are at fault.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 12:48:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Planerench:
I am curious however how fast the opposing traffic would have to be going before it becomes a mitigating circumstance.



You have a duty to only enter the roadway/intersection when safe to do so. If a car in approaching the intersection at 20mph or 120MPH it doesnt matter. You dont enter until safe to do so.

As for should you fight the ticket? Of course, the officer will appreciate the court overtime.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 12:55:33 PM EDT
Pay it and move on.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:01:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 1:01:39 PM EDT by leo6223]
Traffic tickets are like a criminal case in that regardless of the mitigating factors the fact remains that you violated the law.

However, in the case of a civil trail involving injuries you would be able to argue that a percentage of fault could be assigned to the driver that hit you due to speeding.


Bottom line, you failed to yield. You caused the accident.

One more thing....your esitmate don't mean squat in a court of law.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:21:45 PM EDT
In VA, the speeder would be at fault:

§ 46.2-823. Unlawful speed forfeits right-of-way.

The driver of any vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit any right-of-way which he might otherwise have under this article.

(Code 1950, § 46-238; 1952, c. 666; 1956, c. 533; 1958, c. 541, § 46.1-221; 1985, c. 218; 1989, c. 727.)
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 2:01:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Woden:
In VA, the speeder would be at fault:

§ 46.2-823. Unlawful speed forfeits right-of-way.

The driver of any vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit any right-of-way which he might otherwise have under this article.

(Code 1950, § 46-238; 1952, c. 666; 1956, c. 533; 1958, c. 541, § 46.1-221; 1985, c. 218; 1989, c. 727.)



So if I hit someone who is doing 51 in a 50, they are at fault?

What brainiac came up with that one?

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 4:43:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Planerench:
I am curious however how fast the opposing traffic would have to be going before it becomes a mitigating circumstance.



You have a duty to only enter the roadway/intersection when safe to do so. If a car in approaching the intersection at 20mph or 120MPH it doesnt matter. You dont enter until safe to do so.

As for should you fight the ticket? Of course, the officer will appreciate the court overtime.



I pursued a stolen car (nephew stole it from aunt) that eventually T-boned a Toyota in the middle of an intersection that had only a two way stop. The girl in the Toyota stopped and looked then proceeded without even being able to see the approaching stolen vehicle. There IS a point where reasonable measures have been taken to be sure of safe traversing of the intersection. I am curious where that point is.

I humbly accept my portion of the fault but refuse to accept that in a case where I was 18" from being clear of the intersection and the vehicle with the right of way was speeding that I bear all the blame. Stop signs are there for a reason, so are speed limits. Planerench out.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 4:44:33 PM EDT
Shut up and pay your tax peasant.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 4:52:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Planerench:
I am curious however how fast the opposing traffic would have to be going before it becomes a mitigating circumstance.



You have a duty to only enter the roadway/intersection when safe to do so. If a car in approaching the intersection at 20mph or 120MPH it doesnt matter. You dont enter until safe to do so.

As for should you fight the ticket? Of course, the officer will appreciate the court overtime.



I pursued a stolen car (nephew stole it from aunt) that eventually T-boned a Toyota in the middle of an intersection that had only a two way stop. The girl in the Toyota stopped and looked then proceeded without even being able to see the approaching stolen vehicle. There IS a point where reasonable measures have been taken to be sure of safe traversing of the intersection. I am curious where that point is.

I humbly accept my portion of the fault but refuse to accept that in a case where I was 18" from being clear of the intersection and the vehicle with the right of way was speeding that I bear all the blame. Stop signs are there for a reason, so are speed limits. Planerench out.



Cops are not going to issue a citation to someone who is the victim of being hit by stolen car.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 4:52:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OFFascist:
If someone crashed into you because you went into the intersection then its your fault.

Were I on a jury I would convict.

I would not convict someone going 70 in a 50 provided as long as they arent driving dangerously to those around them.

Speeding isnt dangerous, not paying attention is dangerous.

IMO you were the one who was not paying attention, you caused the problem, you are at fault.



I whole heartedly agree. However, I also believe that if you exceed the limit you are obligated to a higher level of responsibilty. In hind sight I shouldn't have entered the intersection. If the other vehicle was doing the speed limit there would not have been a collision.

I just need a faster car. If my van were not such a dog I would have been at the next intersection!
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 4:52:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Shut up and pay your tax like a good little Communist.


FIXED.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 4:55:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Planerench:
I am curious however how fast the opposing traffic would have to be going before it becomes a mitigating circumstance.



You have a duty to only enter the roadway/intersection when safe to do so. If a car in approaching the intersection at 20mph or 120MPH it doesnt matter. You dont enter until safe to do so.

As for should you fight the ticket? Of course, the officer will appreciate the court overtime.



I pursued a stolen car (nephew stole it from aunt) that eventually T-boned a Toyota in the middle of an intersection that had only a two way stop. The girl in the Toyota stopped and looked then proceeded without even being able to see the approaching stolen vehicle. There IS a point where reasonable measures have been taken to be sure of safe traversing of the intersection. I am curious where that point is.

I humbly accept my portion of the fault but refuse to accept that in a case where I was 18" from being clear of the intersection and the vehicle with the right of way was speeding that I bear all the blame. Stop signs are there for a reason, so are speed limits. Planerench out.



Cops are not going to issue a citation to someone who is the victim of being hit by stolen car.



The question is the same if the owner had been driving. If the traffic with the obligation to yield is not close enough to see or be able to deduce the speed of an oncomming vehicle how can one be completely at fault?

Thanks for the answers. I will probably go just so I can stop by and jaw with the deputies as I don't get an excuse to go over there very often.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 5:00:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 5:01:13 PM EDT by _DR]
.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 5:04:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 5:37:08 PM EDT by Planerench]
Idaho code49-807(2)

After having stopped, the driver shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle
in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to
constitute an immediate hazard during the time when such driver is moving
across or within the intersection or junction of highways.


1) No person shall drive a
vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions
and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.
Consistent with the foregoing, every person shall drive at a safe and
appropriate speed when approaching and crossing an intersection....
Top Top