I got into an accident a month ago at 4 am. no other cars were involved. the officer wrote me a citation for "careless driving" while i was in the hospital getting treated. How can he issue a citation when he was not there, there were no witnesses, and I was the only person/vehicle involved? thanks guys
LEO's only please, single vehicle accident
- Thread starter SCBQQSTN
- Start date
- Status
I'm a leo in md. Not sure where you're located but i'd go to court. If you lose yes u have to pay court costs and the ticket but i would not issue that citation simply because of the exact reasoning u said. Around here that is a hard ticket to prove. Depending on how the judicidal system works in your area that would make my decision if i were in your shoes. best of luck.
I am located in Florida. That is what I was thinking so I am taking in to court. Even if he does show up those are the facts about the accident so I would think the judge would toss the ticket. thank you for your opinion allen
In Florida careless is a civil charge, not criminal, and therefore you would appear before a traffic magistrate. You will have better luck with an Orange Magistrate over a 9th Cir. Crim Court judge. However, after his investigation the Florida officer could write you the ticket and it would likely stick if the officer shows up.
Good Luck.
thank you for your reply
However what is there to investigate? It was 4 in the morning, conditions were rainy, accidents happen. He wrote me a citation for something that he knows nothing about.
As a Texas State Trooper I have worked several thousand crashes in my career and issued citations where there is a clear violation of the law, which is about 98% of the time. I can't think of one time where I was on scene when a crash occured.
Crashes occur because human error and you are not giving an acurate description of the crash. So yes, an officer can issue a citation even though he was not there to witness your crash. A "Careless Driving" citation is probably like our "Unsafe Speed" which really means you failed to control your vehicle in order to avoid a crash.
Crashes occur because human error and you are not giving an acurate description of the crash. So yes, an officer can issue a citation even though he was not there to witness your crash. A "Careless Driving" citation is probably like our "Unsafe Speed" which really means you failed to control your vehicle in order to avoid a crash.
Investigate the incident.It was 4 am and you were not in control of your vehicle because you crashed. He would investigate as to whether another car may have caused this, etc. He didnt have to witness it to know you crashed without any external factors.
Here in Kansas you could/would get a "Failure to give full time and attention" ticket just because something you did, or did not do, caused you to loose control of your vehicle. We also have an "Officer Opinions" section on the accident form which allows us to put coded opinions as to why you ended up in the position you were in. Hate to say it, but if that officer shows up in court, it's likely your plea will fall on deaf ears.
It was rainy and extremely wet conditions, there was nothing that I could have done. Accidents happen, I am not a careless driver which is why that ticket insults me. For the six years I have been driving I have only been given two minor ticket citations, I do not drive carelessly, it was an accident. Sorry if I am not perfect. My car went off the road and instead of crashing into the trees I corrected to get back on the main road, this cause my vehicle to slide sideways and slam into the guardrail, I tried to AVOID the crash, not get into one.
Well he, or the judge for that matter can't prove anything so that is why I will show up. There must be sufficient evidence to prove someone guilty, the officer literally has nothing to prove against me. How can he win if he has no proof?
Last edited:
The accident was caused because of the way you were operating your vehicle not the conditions. If it were the conditions, there would have been numerous incidents in the same location that night, unless you were the only one to drive on that road that night.
I am willing to bet they can prove it. Did you carefully read Iceman's post? The post is in the absence of any other logical reason for the crash other than operator error, which amounts to careless driving.
Actually "Careless Driving" or "Unsafe Speed" is one of the easiest charges to prove, if not the easiest. One must control their vehicle at a speed in order to avoid any potiential crash or crash. You did not control your vehicle in inclement weather conditions period. I can assure you sir, your not the first who has ever been issued this type of citation. Don't take the citation personal, anyone who has this type of crash gets the same charge.
Last edited:
I could not have said it better! Cars do not crash on their own..Someone does something ..
I don't take it personal, I just can't believe that all officers expect every individual on this planet to be perfect in every possible aspect and be able to avoid an accident even when all elements are against that person, that is the issue that I have. That is why it is an accident, not careless. Careless is driving while intoxicated, careless is driving when angry, careless is driving while receiving a blow job, you get my point.... Responsibility is one thing, but to accuse someone of driving carelessly when one was not even there to witness the circumstances is extremely ignorant. I just think this is an easy way for the police department to get money, because I have not learned a damn thing from the ticket. I learned to value my life from the actual crash. Thank you for you point of view anyways officer.
Last edited:
It is an accident because you did not do it on purpose and your intent was not to end up in a ditch. It is careless because you are required by law to be in control of your vehicle at all times. Since it was not a road condition causing every other driver to end up in the same ditch, there is obviously something different which you did that caused you to end up there and that is the careless part.
Careless is driving while intoxicated, careless is driving when angry, careless is driving while receiving a blow job, you get my point.... Responsibility is one thing, but to accuse someone of driving carelessly when one was not even there to witness the circumstances is extremely ignorant. I just think this is an easy way for the police department to get money, because I have not learned a damn thing from the ticket. I learned to value my life from the actual crash. Thank you for you point of view anyways officer.[/QUOTE]
Driving while intoxicated is a criminal charge and well beyond careless and even reckless.
Driving while receiving oral pleasure would also be reckless, a criminal charge.
It is not ignorant, let alone extremely ignorant to charge someone with careless after investigation without a witness. Eyewitness testimony is one of the most unreliable forms of evidence. I am sure the officer can articulate several reasons for issuing you a careless ticket.
Would you please tell us why the accident occurred, if it was not your error?
BTW, as noted many times before on this site, the amount of revenue that the P.D. sees from the issuance of this ticket does not even cover the costs involved.
There were many accidents that night, perhaps not in the identical location that I was but there were many accidents that night regardless. When rain falls down I am sure you see many more accidents that day as opposed to dry conditions. That is because wet conditions increases chances of accidents to occur because wet roads mean less traction, which means higher chance of an accident. Your reply is to simply drop the speed, which was done. I hydroplaned and crashed. Tell me what I could have done to prevent that?
Oh and I completely believe you when you say the ticket does not cover the cost, but I am sure it helps to issue a ticket and recieve some money as opposed to no ticket being issued at all.
Last edited:
If your car truly hydroplaned - you were indeed driving too fast for the existing conditions. That places you at fault, not the conditions. Issuing the citation validates the city/county claim against you, since they will hit your insurance for the damage you caused to the guard rail.
Based on your responses to others, I am sure you will disagree but in the end a prima facia case was established the moment you lost control of your car and collided with a fixed object.
An accident is you striking a car that turns into your path without warning, a tire blows out and you hit a guard rail, etc.
Your situation was preventable, all you needed to do was match your speed to the existing conditions. Pretty simple stuff, certainly easy for the officer to prove and almost impossible for you to defend.
Based on your responses to others, I am sure you will disagree but in the end a prima facia case was established the moment you lost control of your car and collided with a fixed object.
An accident is you striking a car that turns into your path without warning, a tire blows out and you hit a guard rail, etc.
Your situation was preventable, all you needed to do was match your speed to the existing conditions. Pretty simple stuff, certainly easy for the officer to prove and almost impossible for you to defend.
I have hydroplaned at 30 mph before so excess speed cannot be the direct cause. Far slower than the speeds I was traveling on the freeway. So unless it is okay to travel at 20 mph on a highway I don't think there was much I could have done.
My assumption was correct; you have an excuse and a defense for every and all situations. For the life of me I cannot understand why you posted here in the first place. :shrug:
Hydroplaning is not rocket science and will only serve to defeat you in court. Judges drive too, they share the roads with folks who drive past them every day, then when they lose control they blame:
hydroplaning! = driving too fast for existing conditions.........;-) and yes; if need be, 20 mph is the proper (and safe) speed to be driving when you are self-admittedly hydroplaning at 30 mph !!!
Your best bet is to forget the whole "no one saw me do it, so I am not at fault" defense.
Hydroplaning is not rocket science and will only serve to defeat you in court. Judges drive too, they share the roads with folks who drive past them every day, then when they lose control they blame:
hydroplaning! = driving too fast for existing conditions.........;-) and yes; if need be, 20 mph is the proper (and safe) speed to be driving when you are self-admittedly hydroplaning at 30 mph !!!
Your best bet is to forget the whole "no one saw me do it, so I am not at fault" defense.
"The risk of hydroplaning increases with the depth of standing water and the sensitivity of a vehicle to that water depth."
Speed is not everything like you are trying to imply it is, this is why hydroplaning can occur even at 25 mph. The build up of water under the tire would cause the vehicle to loss control. the greater the depth of the water, the greater the chance of hydroplaning. This is proven to occur at slow speeds by hitting water spots on the road. Unless the vehicle is going 5 mph the water WILL hydroplane even at slow to moderate speeds.
Good luck dude; tell it to the judge. :beer: :beer:
Adam - time to close this one; he has all the answers..........:bored:
Adam - time to close this one; he has all the answers..........:bored:
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
