Wife getting better after the accident....

[TexasFJR]

was there a sign to warn you of the turn up ahead..might be worth a road trip to see that.

BTW...what is the roads you travel to get to frdbrg, tx.

i hate taking the hwy.

 

[Inlaw1]

The DPS officers name wasn't Sanchez, was it?

Scott?? Wow, I was just getting ready to reply with your story! On an FJR now a days, eh?

A little more to this story is the local Sheriff Dept did come and investigate, no tickets issued. The DPS officer, if I remember right, was out of town and still mailed a ticket for failure to control speed.

Someone runs into the back of me and since the officer didn't see it, he doesn't issue a ticket forcing the burden of proof onto me that the accident was indeed not my fault. The guy who hit me claimed I slammed on my brakes causing the accident. It took the cost of a lawyer to get the matter resolved which was cut and dried to begin with and with a little investigation the investigating officer would know that.

Yet in Scott's case one officer can investigate an accident and not issue a ticket, yet another whom wasn't even on duty at the time can later issue one.... just ridiculous.

To: Nusman68,

Glad your wife is better. Depending on what was said at the time of the initial investigation I'd go with there was gravel on the road which caused her to go wide. Then threaten to sue the local county road department. :blink:

I guess you could see if this trooper writes an inordinate amount of tickets to motorcyclist Vs autos in accident scenarios.

You probably should just try for deferred adjudication or defensive driving. It's the easiest way out.

 

[markjenn]

Glad your wife is better. Depending on what was said at the time of the initial investigation I'd go with there was gravel on the road which caused her to go wide.

I wouldn't do this. If you get involved in court, they're going to try and get you to incriminate yourself. If you say it was gravel, then they've got you for "too fast for conditions" since you admit you saw the road hazard but failed to slow down enough for it. And if there wasn't any gravel in the turn, then you're lying and you never want to lie under oath.

If you fight this, I think the appropriate defense is that you don't know why you crashed, but you are certain you were obeying the posted speed limit and were driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions. This shifts the burden of proof on them to show you were driving too fast and without physical evidence or witnesses, I don't see how they can do this.

Having said all this, sometimes you have to pick which battles to fight. This may be one of those were you know they've got you at a disadvantage so you grit your teeth and pay. Consider it a cost of doing business.

- Mark

 

[feejer222]

Can't believe what I am reading. Just wouldn't happen here. The cop is basically guessing that she went too fast. It's as simple as that. He has no evidence whatsoever, no proof, no witness, just guesswork. That is not justice in any shape or form. She will get the fine simply because 1 cop thinks she should. I wouldnt accept it at all and would take it as high as is needed.

 

[Inlaw1]

If you say it was gravel, then they've got you for "too fast for conditions" since you admit you saw the road hazard but failed to slow down enough for it.

Then don't say that you saw the gravel. Many times I've come around a corner to hit gravel I didn't see in time, just had to deal with it. Not everyone deals with it as well as I do. If they don't, they may get thrown off their line and run wide then off the road.

Seems reasonable to me, you would just have to be good at selling it to the Judge.

That said, here in Texas it's usually pretty easy to keep the ticket off your record through deferred adjudication or defensive driving. Still cost you money and that bites in this case, but at least it doesn't go against your record.

 

[Charlie Hoss]

Can't believe what I am reading. Just wouldn't happen here. The cop is basically guessing that she went too fast. It's as simple as that. He has no evidence whatsoever, no proof, no witness, just guesswork. That is not justice in any shape or form. She will get the fine simply because 1 cop thinks she should. I wouldnt accept it at all and would take it as high as is needed.

I agree with feejer222. The reason this crap happens so often is because most of us DON'T have the time to fight this kind of revenuing and we just pay it and try to forget it. And they KNOW it.

That is why they keep doing it!! There are all kinds of reasons, other than excessive speed, that could have caused this accident...bee in helmet, deer in road, ahem...looked down at map. Seems the cop has to offer some proof of speed. Innocent til proven guilty. Make them earn their revenue.

If more people would fight these tickets, maybe they'd stop treating good citizens with such scorn.

 

[mdisher]

The underlying logic is that the driver is responsible for maintaning control of his/her vehicle no matter what. The crash proves that she was not in control. So the ticket gets issued as a natural consequence. Had she not been going as fast as she was, then she wouldn't have lost control and crashed, hence she was driving too fast for the conditions.

So, I'm legally parked by the curbside and just taking off. Right as I start forward motion, the dreaded TPS sensor fails, the bike stalls, and down we go. The bike scratches the parked car that was right beside me, property is damaged. I can still get a ticket for going as fast I was? Even though, literally, it was a lack of speed that contributed to the crash? This just doesn't seem right.

I would think that here in Ohio, she would have been ticketed for "Failure to control" her vehicle, not speed, unless speed "too safe for conditions" was obvious and provable beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously the was a 'Failure to control', but maybe them laws is different round there.

I am not a police officer, nor a lawyer, but I've met plenty of both

I think it also depends on the officer... Since they were called to the scene, they have to recoup some of the costs don't they?

Oh, and very happy to hear she's healing up well.

 

[Dwavey]

The Mounties up here (really, Mounties) might also try the failure to control or unsafe speed tact, or more likely, undue care and attention. At least the ones that have it in for motorcyclists. They have so many ways to get you but whatever way they use, they'd have to offer some sort of proof to back up their allegation. Then again, with the bias that some JPs have in favour of the police that theotherscott noted, that proof could be as lame as your teenager's excuse for coming in 2 hours after curfew smelling like a brewery. Hopefully you can get an unbiased judge to whom you can argue something that would raise reasonable doubt to counter whatever proof the DPS officer offers - even a sneeze or sudden cramp (or flashback to the WFO5 Man-Boob contest :dribble: ) could be enough to suggest that the crash was due to factors other than speed, or undue care and attention, or failure to control.

All that legal mumbo jumbo aside, if it had happened to me personally I'd ignore the ticket and never cross the border without a good fake passport :lol:

 

[feejer222]

On another tack....shouldn't some leeway be given because of her injuries and damage to her bike. Surely any judge, if not the cop would be sympathetic?

I would be very tempted to mention in court, the injuries and bike damage already suffered.

 

[otrfjr]

Maybe you could get hard evidence to prove that she wasn't speeding: how far is the fence from the road? How heavy is the bike? Calculate speed via physics. I bet you that the issuing officer will get stumped on that one in court: "What distance would x number of pounds travel at x speed given its inertia?"

 

[Fencer]

Seems the cop has to offer some proof of speed. Innocent til proven guilty.

+ 1

I was about to add that. Are there any Skid marks so distance can be calculated?

Calling CSI Texas :lol:

and a FWIW

You can go to wide in a curve doing 10 mph just as easily as you could at 50 mph

 

[kulwen]

Glad to hear the wife is doing better.

My suggestion is to get Pre-paid legal.

Link

It costs $26 a month and only a few days to get the account set-up. Then you call an 800 number and tell then you got a traffic ticket. You will get a call from a lawyer in a short time and get advice on how to proceed.

I received a ticket a few months back in CA for going 83 in a 65. Apparently, the plane caught me at that speed. Yes, I was speeding. My cruise control was set at 70. I followed the lawyer’s advice and went and got my speedometer certified and we went to court. Once the judge saw I had a lawyer he dropped the charges. My lawyer told me in many cases if you lawyer up cases are drop when fines are less then $200 or so. It would end up costing more then the cost of the ticket trying to prove their case in court. My point here is I did not have a lawyer I might have lost my case.

Of course, I like this idea best.

Plead not guilty and call a bunch of witnesses to explain how easy it is to lose traction on gravel when roads are not maintained by the state. Call on everyone on this board to show up in court as a witness. It might not do much good, but would prove a point.

 

[Indian Scout]

Wife testifies she wasn't speeding and that it must have been something slick on the road surface that caused the bike to slide out.

Testifies office should have had it cleaned up before she came along therefor it's the states fault.

 

[wallypiper]

'Failure to control'

That's what they cite for in Georgia. Not universally, but pretty regularly, if you are in a single vehicle accident, you will get a ticket for "failure to maintain control of the vehicle". Its a primie facie charge - that means, in effect, its not arguable. One of your responsibilites, as a driver, is to maintain control of your vehicle at all times, regardless of circumstances. It may seem mean or unfair, but its the law in most places. Too fast for conditions is another, similar charge. Conditions can mean anything from lighting to road surface to temperature. If you wreck because you couldn't make a turn or stop before you hit something, then you were going too fast for conditions. You'd be wasting you time trying to sue the state for road conditions. You won't even get a response. The state is immune to such claims as it is not realistic to expect them to be on site at every foot of every road at every moment of every day to clear hazards or repair damage.

 

[throttlejockeyTJ]

I am glad your wife is doing much better.

I wonder if Larry Winter got an after the fact ticket. He had a bat climb into his jacket causing a fatal accident. Stay Safe! TJ

 

[SecuLaw]

Of all things stated the most important is that your wife survived and is healing well. The ticket is just more stress on a stress filled incident.

Conceptually, I had a client who had the same type of run in with a LEO. In her case she was driving a car around an entrance ramp, hit black ice and slide into the jersey wall, hard. Officer shows up at the hospital, doesn't ask her any questions just has her sign a ticket for "failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident". She hired me and I had a great deal of fun during cross examination to the point the judge just smacked the gavel "Not guilty" without me putting on a defense (not that I was going too).

Without witnessing the accident and without your wife admitting anything there are just to many other factors which could have caused the accident that aren't the fault of your wife. The officer can be asked those questions and because he didn't witness the accident he can't answer, he's toast on the witness stand.

 

[huk finn]

, it was unwitnessed, Your suggestions please.

Thanks in advance

Brad

Hire a lawyer, have it thrown out.

as for being un-witnessed, weren't you in front, did you forget you saw fluid on the road??? must have been antifreeze or gas that evaporated before help arrived. You were in front, she wasn't passing, you made it safely= she wasn't going to fast!

about the accident reconstruction officer (the one who most likely wrote the late ticket), he most likely will have weight of bike & rider and skid length, which is not enough. Which part of bike made the skid marks, was it rubber , fiberglass, steel or aluminium? each will have different drag properties effecting stopping power,,, thickness & depth of each section of skid marks,,, and this is where a lawyer will also do his deed.

Next will be pavement condition, here in illinois. we used to use a computerized trailer that would lock a fifth tire that would test asphault for stopping power. was pavement oilsoaked,water saturated, to much stone reveiled ,not enough tar in mix, etc. Illinois quit using that trailer, it could show pre-existing (known) like glass, problems that could lead to lawsuits.

Was there any crack seal applied on pavement (liquid rubber)? this suff is slippery, especially in a turn.

Sorry for the rant, but once again,,, lawyer = dismissal

 

[IGoSlow]

I'm a big proponent of fighting tickets, but you haven't got much of a case for the defense.
The ticket was issued based on going faster than conditions allowed for safe driving - strangely, the same ticket could have been issued no matter what the situation - unless you get hit by another car, you get swept away in a flash flood or a meteor crashes down upon you. It is a sort-of catch-all charge

The underlying logic is that the driver is responsible for maintaning control of his/her vehicle no matter what. The crash proves that she was not in control. So the ticket gets issued as a natural consequence. Had she not been going as fast as she was, then she wouldn't have lost control and crashed, hence she was driving too fast for the conditions.

You might be able to plead it down to a non-moving violaion, which will reduce the future sting on insurance premiums. Ends up probably being cheaper than hiring a lawyer and has the same result.

+1

If the ticket was for too fast for conditions ( or some equivlent ) I doubt you can get out of it. If they can prove that a accident occured

then no matter the speed or conditions you didnt have the vehicle under control and that is what the ticket is for.

 

[OrangevaleFJR]

was there a sign to warn you of the turn up ahead..might be worth a road trip to see that.
BTW...what is the roads you travel to get to frdbrg, tx.

i hate taking the hwy.

I have seen counties successfully sued for not properly marking turns.

If they are gonna mess with you, I would not only fight the ticket, I'd mess with them too. Sorry, I don't take kindly to people being messed with

 

[Whybu1]

Hard to argue a ticket for "traveling at unsafe speed" if you crash. Basically losing control shows you were going too fast for conditions. Germany had same law. Esp on the autobahn, if you have an accident involving no other drivers you get a ticket for unsafe speed.