Let me start off by saying that this is not a post asking for legal advice, if for no other reason than $103 is not worth missing work for to challenge.
I was involved in a (very minor) fender bender this morning on my commute into work. There’s a long story, but the short version is that the car in front of me decelrated at a rapid rate, and I nudged his bumper. There was very minimal damage to both cars; for some reason, he had called the police before I even had a chance to ask if he was alright (that reason, likely as not, is to get my insurance company to pay for prior damage to his vehicle… but that’s for a rant to be named later). Anyways, end of the story, I fully realize that I am almost certainly going to be found liable from an insurance point of view, despite the fact that the “accident” was precipitated by his stopping from 30-40mph for little reason. I do not contest this.
The part where my question comes in is this: almost without thinking about it, the officer at the site issued me a traffic ticket for following too closely (statute 14-240 in the state of Connecticut, as I recall, though I left it in the car). Literally the only reason that this possibly could have been issued is “I hit him”; there was no witness who said that I was following too closely, and given the circumstances there is no particular reason to believe that I was following too closely other than the accident itself. In fact, I was approximately 2.5-3 car lengths behind the car in front of me, which was long enough for me to spend a quarter of a second in my head going “IS HE SERIOUSLY BRAKING TO A COMPLETE STOP, WHAT THE HELL?!”, slam on my brakes, and lightly bump his rear end instead of smashing into it like he probably deserved.
If I were so inclined to challenge this ticket, it would seem to me that The People would have no leg to stand on… UNLESS the existence of the fender bender itself is by its very nature acceptable proof in court that I was following too closely, regardless of any other circumstances relating to the accident. The idealist, principled part of me finds this very hard to believe… but the realist realizes that this is EXACTLY how the state would define it if they wanted automatic revenue out of any accident that they sent police to, regardless of the circumstances.
So, in theory-world, if I were to plead not guilty instead of paying the fine, is the mere existence of the accident sufficient proof for the state’s case?
I would say the fact that you failed to come to a safe stop within the distance you could see to be clear implies pretty strongly that you were driving too close. But then I’m not a lawyer.
I think the ONLY response you’re likely to get on this board will be similar to mine.
If you tapped his bumper, you were to close. If you were 3.5 car lengths back, you would have stopped 5 feet short of his bumper. You could have then proceded to pull around him make a gesture of your choice and move on with life.
The point is, you hit him, you were to close, there’s no two ways around this. You should always be far enough back that if the person in front of you decides to screech to a halt (with or without reason) you have time to stop as well.
ETA: It’s YOU that doesn’t have a leg to stand on, not ‘the people’ and I think you can expect a pile on of other posters who feel the same way.
I’d be curious to see how you would defend yourself in this case. “He stopped for no reason” isn’t gonna do it. You can’t follow to close just because the person in front of you dosen’t have a reason to stop. What if a deer jumped in the road, or a kid, or a car pulled out of their driveway without looking.
IANAL, but I think a reasonable person would assume one of two things,
a. You were following too close.
b. You were not paying attention.
Inattention is often listed as a cause for accidents, and if you admit you were not paying attention/were distracted, that might get you out of the following too close ticket. I don’t know however, if you can then be cited for not paying attention. I’m not sure what ticket that would be. If you are cited for reckless driving, that I think is much worse.
I certainly have my own views on the subject, but I looked up the Connecticut law on the issue. Cite. Interestingly enough, the statute contains this note:
I cannot find what this note refers to, however.
I also wonder whether civil responsibility (whether you can be held responsible for damages to the other person’s car) and responsibility for the traffic infraction could have different standards. If the legislature did not intend the “following too closely” law to apply to all rear-end collisions, I suppose one could say that someone can be liable for the damages to another car without having committed a traffic infraction, depending on exactly what the legislature intended and the precise facts of the crash.
I can only speak for laws here in Virginia, which is a 100% liability state. Either way, to my knowledge, the vast majority of the time the blame for a rear-end collision goes to the one who rear-ended the other. However, there are plenty of cases where this isn’t true, such as pulling out in front or, in your case, unnecessary stopping/slowing.
The ticket itself may or may not be worth protesting (probably not, unless the points are crippling); however, the ticket is sort of a defacto way of assigning fault for the accident. If you believe you are not at fault, it may behoove you to speak with your insurance agent and/or a lawyer because such a ticket may not cost you only the $100 of the ticket, but a deductable and higher premiums in the future as well.
I was barely tapped in the bumber enough for some some scraped paint and a dent, and it was clearly not my fault (the guy behind took off faster at the green light than I did), but it ended up costing around $800 if IIRC to repair it.
You will need to look into your local laws to determine what constitutes “following to closely”, but FWIW, the rule of thumb I’ve always had is that if I don’t have enough time to react and come to a complete stop, then it’s my fault. Of course, that’s not always possible (in fact, it’s a rarity in DC metro area traffic). However, someone effectively slamming on their brakes without reason probably puts him at fault.
Of course, standard disclaimers apply: IANAL, YMMV, void where prohibited, etc.
Oh, I have no doubt that I’m on the hook, and as I said, I fully intend to pay the fine in question. However, I do NOT believe that I was following too closely. As I’m sure most of you who commute near a city of any size are aware, three car lengths isn’t so much a following distance as it is an invitation for someone to cut in front of you and make it one car length or less. I have no problem with the civil/insurance definition that I am liable for the accident; that’s the way these things work. I do have a problem with the ticket, but not enough of one that I won’t pay it - this is my first ticket ever, actually. My ‘general question’ (rather than the IMHO of whether it was my fault) was whether the accident itself was sufficient proof of the infraction. For instance, it’s commonly said (I have no idea if this is true) that in a speeding case, if the officer doesn’t show up at the trial, you will win almost automatically for lack of a prosecution witness.
I have to go back to work, where the SDMB is blocked, unfortunately; on preview, the point of view that I’m coming from is basically what Ravenman is saying.
I think that it’s practically by definition that if you run into the back of another car you were either following too close or not paying attention. The only case might be if the car in front stopped faster than normal braking, e.g., if a truck in front of it dropped a large object in its path, and the car collided with the object. You should drive as if there might be an emergency, such as a child running across the road in front, at any time, and that the first you will know is seeing the brake lights.
Actually, if you look at the statute, it says that if a “caravan” does not allow enough space for someone to safely enter between cars, that constitutes an infraction of “following too closely.”
I personally agree with this 100%, but it is interesting that the Connecticut legislature appears to believe there may be exceptions to this view. Alas, after further searching, I cannot find any more discussion on this issue.
You hit the car in front of you in traffic, so you WERE travelling too closely.
These drivers who cut in are not leaving enough room to stop safely. Therefore they are driving badly. That is no excuse for you to drive badly.
My mate was a police driver (and took all the advanced driving courses they had).
He commented that every time someone cut in, he would back off to a safe distance.
He also didn’t get annoyed when this happened, but stayed alert.
He never had an accident.
IANAL but would like to present a new take on this. Talk to your insurance agent NOW!!!
It smells like an insurance scam. Stopping for no reason? Calling cops before you even get out of the car? He sounds like a pro.
The car may have been stopping for a reason not known to the OP (small animal in the road, driver thought he had a flat and paniced, etc…). As for calling the police before getting out of the car, I’ve done that several times both when I was at fault and when I wasn’t. As long as there are no injuries, the sooner the police can get there the better.
In citing you, the officer is determining that, given the speeds, the weather and the highway conditions, you were closer than was reasonable and prudent. In short, a reasonable person would have followed at a distance that would have precluded running into the car in front of them.
I have always been told that the reasonable distance equates to a medium car length for every 10 mph you are doing. Thus, for example, in a 45 mph zone, you need to be 4.5 + car lengths behind. Another good rule of thumb is the 2 sec. rule, which turns this into something more easily measured: stay far enough behind that it takes two seconds to reach the same point the car in front of you is at when you start counting.
Now it is possible that you were being reasonable and prudent, and still hit the car in front of you. For example, the car’s decelleration might have been so rapid that no reasonable person would have been able to anticipate it and correct for it. But, as a general rule of thumb, you are supposed to be far enough back that an unexpected stop can be corrected for. In short, the officer’s determination that you were too close, based upon the fact you hit the car in front of you, is likely based on sufficient evidence for a conviction at trial.
Frankly, most of us follow too closely. Food for thought… :eek:
By your own admittance, you had 1/4 of a second between realizing the car was stopping, and hitting them. It takes the average person 3/4 of a second to begin breaking after the visual stimulus. 3/4 > 1/4.
In my area, I’ve been told by officers that they tend to issue a citation if there is property damage or personal injury, and let the courts sort it out. I can understand this position, especially if I am the strikee instead of the striker. Absent someone getting a ticket, it’s more difficult to prove who was at fault from an insurance standpoint. From the officer’s standpoint there would be a reasonable inference that you were following too closely, and I think the chances of successfully arguing otherwise are low.
I agree you should have your antenna up about the possibility of insurance fraud, but you know the details of why the car stopped better than we. I also agree that if we all left reasonable and prudent distances no one would get to work.
The first ticket I ever got was because I locked my brakes and rear-ended a vehicle which was stopped at a stop sign. The officer who wrote the ticket just happened to be the son of my elementary school’s secretary, who lived two doors up the street from me, and who I had known literally all my life. He gave it to me very straight when he handed me the ticket and said, “I have to charge you with something, because this was clearly your fault. I wrote it for travelling too fast for conditions.”