Following Too Closely - Traffic Ticket Q

Factual Questions
21

[QUOTE=Kiros]
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?
[/QUOTE]

IANAL either, but in the real-world, people often plead not-guilty to traffic infractions and hope that the arresting officer doesn’t make it to the trial, thus the state doesn’t have much, or enough (or any?) evidence to charge them. In this situation, since the officer didn’t witness the accident, wouldn’t the state have to rely on the other driver? And wouldn’t he be unlikely to show up as well?

22

[QUOTE=Giles]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Allstate.com has helpfully posted some rear-end “Schemes and Scams” like “Swoop and Squat” and “Start and Stop”. Also, the car in front could back into yours.

23

[QUOTE=KidScruffy]
IANAL either, but in the real-world, people often plead not-guilty to traffic infractions and hope that the arresting officer doesn’t make it to the trial, thus the state doesn’t have much, or enough (or any?) evidence to charge them. In this situation, since the officer didn’t witness the accident, wouldn’t the state have to rely on the other driver? And wouldn’t he be unlikely to show up as well?
[/QUOTE]

The state would be able to enter into evidence the testimony of the officer, sufficient to establish that the accident happened. There would be information supporting the fact that the accident occurred as described by the drivers (skid marks, for example, terminating at the spot the cars crashed). This would be sufficient to establish the occurrence of the accident and the violation of the law, even without the other driver’s testimony.

Of course, if the state really needed it, they would simply subpoena the other driver to testify.

24

I want to thank most of you, but in particular DSYoungEsq - I knew the angel-drivers would come out to play but you sparked entirely the kind of discussion/response that I was looking for.

If I am understanding correctly, the existence of the accident doesn’t necessarily guarantee the case, but shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant to establish that they were NOT following too closely - which is then by definition extremely difficult to prove, given that “reasonable and prudent” would expect that there would be time to stop in any circumstances.

[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
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.
[/QUOTE]

If you read again, I actually said it was a quarter of a second for my brain to realize what the heck was going on in the unexpected situation, and getting myself into action. I then had enough time to hit the brakes and slow from about 30 to about 5mph at time of impact, so definitely a couple/few seconds in total. I’m a dork, so if I have fifteen minutes this weekend I’ll probably look up the data and run the maths to see how much time/space I actually had, and if my memory is betraying me or I was closer than I thought.

Chief Pedant - I am definitely going to “suck it up and let it go”, with the one caveat that I am going to make ESPECIALLY sure that the other driver does not claim damages in excess of what came from this accident. I had the damage appraised at my insurance-approved garage on the way home from work, and it was estimated at about $750 (including labor) to fix my car. Now, I drive a new Toyota Yaris (delicious mileage for my 120mi round trip commute), which is about the smallest car on the road, and with a front end that collapses fairly easily in crash tests… the car that I bumped was a 2002 Nissan Altima… I am going to make sure the insurance company is especially on guard. The officer wrote “severe left rear” damage on the police report, even though the left rear light was basically electrical-taped on prior to the accident, and the driver of the other car mentioned to said officer that he had been in a previous collision (no mention of such was on the report).

25

I am not a lawyer.

I’ve always known this rule as maintaining a ‘safe and clear distance’. If you hit someone from behind, you probably failed to maintain a safe and clear distance.

The only exception I know of to this rule, and it would be difficult to prove without a third party witness, is if a car changed lanes in front of you and then immediately slammed on his brakes. In that instance you did not have time to establish a safe and clear distance before he stopped.

26

(At least in CA) I thought the PO had to personally witness an Infraction in order to cite? :confused:

27

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]

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.
[/QUOTE]

One of the things my drivers ed teacher taught us is to always have an ‘escape route.’ That is, when ever you’re driving, always know where you can swerve to should something like this happen. I know, it’s not always possible, but it’s something I think about when I’m driving.

If I were you, I would go and track down that officer and see if there is anyway that can be added on to the report somehow. That may come in handy. Of course, if the other driver mentioned that, it’s probably not a scam. In fact, if it were a scam, I don’t think the electrical tape would be there to begin with.

28

[QUOTE=Kiros]
I want to thank most of you, but in particular DSYoungEsq - I knew the angel-drivers would come out to play but you sparked entirely the kind of discussion/response that I was looking for.

[/quote]

An interesting choice of words.

You post you had an accident and that it was not your fault. When we point out it was your fault (both legally and according to safe driving practice), you ignore us, but throw in ‘angel-drivers’. Is this a bad thing in your world? Are you admitting to being a ‘devil-driver’.

Here’s the thing.
Why were you driving so close you couldn’t stop?
Were you … in a hurry?
If you leave enough space to stop and a reckless driver cuts in, does it annoy you? Do you want to get even?

29

Brief anecdote:

Although I agree with the principle that “you hit him therefore you were too close”, the police in the UK have been reporting on a scam in London recently.

A car will brake v. sharply on a roundabout, causing whoever’s following to slam into the back.

The scammers will then jump out of the car and insist on payment for damage, in return for not calling the police / insurance companies.

Because most people are willing to keep their no-claims discount they pay up to £250-300 for the matter to be dropped.

However, the police will charge such antics with dangerous driving.

So it’s not a “default” law where “you hit him = you’re guilty”, there is room for context.

30

[QUOTE=Kiros]
My ‘general question’ (rather than the IMHO of whether it was my fault) was whether the accident itself was sufficient proof of the infraction.
[/QUOTE]

Absolutely not, well, not where I live anyway.
You and the car infront of you collided, does not mean you are to blame becuase you were following !

[QUOTE=glee]

You hit the car in front of you in traffic, so you WERE travelling too closely.
[/QUOTE]

There is either a serious lack of common sense on these boards or very strange understanding of the laws in some parts of the world.

I was a passenger in an traffic collision similar to this. We were exiting a roundabout onto a long straight 60mph limit road. As we followed the car infront, both accelerating, the driver in our car noticed a large gap in the oncoming traffic. We acclerated towards the rear of the car infront (which was probaly only doing 45- 50 at this point) and timing our approach to pull out and overtake (idicators blinking from the start of our increaed approach). As our car was about halfway out and approximately 8 feet from the car infront, the car infront stood on his breaks, my driver attempted to swerve but caught the rear wing of the car infront.

The other driver was going mental, swearing his head of at my cousin (my driver) saying women should not be driving etc etc. He was probably about 25 and looked like a chav. No one was hurt. The police arrived and took a statement from both drivers, myself and the car behind us chiped in aswell.

The police did not say, “well you hit him so its your fault”.
Instead the chav was considered to be driving recklessly and performing an emergency stop with no clear sign of an emergency.

31

[QUOTE=Chew Barker]
Instead the chav was considered to be driving recklessly and performing an emergency stop with no clear sign of an emergency.
[/QUOTE]

Yep, that was the thrust of the reports I referenced in my post above.

You can’t simply stand on the brakes and then say “you were following too closely”.

I guess, though, that if there HAD been a genuine reason to stop your cousin would have been at fault?

32

[QUOTE=Chew Barker]
We acclerated towards the rear of the car infront (which was probaly only doing 45- 50 at this point) and timing our approach to pull out and overtake (idicators blinking from the start of our increaed approach). As our car was about halfway out and approximately 8 feet from the car infront, the car infront stood on his breaks, my driver attempted to swerve but caught the rear wing of the car infront.
[/QUOTE]

So the car is going 45 (I assume that’s kph, which works out to about 25 mph) and you were 8 feet behind him. That’s just dumb. If you’re 8 feet away from a car going more then 10 mph, you’re asking to hit them. If you were following from a proper distance they could slam into a brick wall and you would still have time to stop.
I’m sick of people saying the car stopped for no reason. Who cares if the car stopped for no reason, you would have hit them if they stopped for a good reason to, it doesn’t make a difference.

I sure as hell wouldn’t pay for that. I’m not saying I wouldn’t pay for the damage I caused, but NO money changes hand without at least a police report, and a check written from myself to the other party. I’d be concerened they would take the cash and then file a claim anyways.

33

[QUOTE=Joey P]
So the car is going 45 (I assume that’s kph, which works out to about 25 mph) and you were 8 feet behind him. That’s just dumb. If you’re 8 feet away from a car going more then 10 mph, you’re asking to hit them
[/QUOTE]

firstly: it is 45mph
secondly: I wasn’t driving, don’t call me dumb
thirdly: This is one of two stardard overtaking procedures taught in the UK on a pass plus course. One method is: follow car, pull out, accelerate past, pull in. Another method is: close in (accelerate) on car infront to between 1.5 and 2 car lenths, move to centre of road and finally into oncoming lane (getting closer, one part of a car could be about 8 feet from the car infront) all the while increasing speed to safely pass the slower car.

My cousing was not tailgaiting at 8 feet, this is closest the car got when she was atleast halfway pulled out whilst performing the manouver.

34

[QUOTE=glee]
An interesting choice of words.

You post you had an accident and that it was not your fault. When we point out it was your fault (both legally and according to safe driving practice), you ignore us, but throw in ‘angel-drivers’. Is this a bad thing in your world? Are you admitting to being a ‘devil-driver’.

Here’s the thing.
Why were you driving so close you couldn’t stop?
Were you … in a hurry?
If you leave enough space to stop and a reckless driver cuts in, does it annoy you? Do you want to get even?
[/QUOTE]

I am on a short break, so I don’t have the luxury to give this the reply that it (doesn’t) deserve, but I would note that the original question was:

So you can surely see where I might appreciate responses that go past black and white to look at the law in question, the way the burden of proof works, how it might be affected by varying laws in their own jurisdictions, and other material items.

As to the choice of words, I am clearly Road Raging all over this one. Definitely. (Is this a forum where the roll-eyes can be construed as an insult? I don’t really post in GQ that often.)

To humor your questions, though:
Because I was following at a distance that would likely pass any DMV test or police observation in the country, had this specific situation not happened; thus, while I accept my fault for the accident for most of the reasons cited in this thread (particularly that I should be aware of any possible situation), I wanted to discuss if there was some contention, somewhere, that there’s the tiniest bit of a possibility that it could be described as a “reasonable and prudent” distance.

No, I was not in a hurry, as I have no specific time that I must arrive at work, within reason.

Yes, but in a mildly miffed sort of way, rather than in an annoyed and angry sort of way.

I would find a sort of humorous schadenfreude in “getting even” with every driver who does something I don’t like on the road, but until wireless networking improves to the point where I can virtually head-smack someone sixty feet in front of me, it doesn’t seem very likely.

35

[QUOTE=Chew Barker]
firstly: it is 45mph
[/quote]

Well then it’s not dumb, it’s really fucking stupid to be 8 feet behind a car going 45 mph.
It doens’t matter if that’s what they teach you. What they should teach you is not to trust other drivers. Always assume that something may happen that will cause the car in front of you to slam on it’s brakes. Be it a kid in the road, a small (or large) animal darting into the street, or, hell, the driver could just be stupid, that happens too.

Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that. I knew you weren’t driving, I just got my reply mixed up.

36

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
(At least in CA) I thought the PO had to personally witness an Infraction in order to cite? :confused:
[/QUOTE]

I can’t guarantee that it is the same in California but I am sure it is similar. There is a difference between “Hey that guy ran a red light back there!” and an accident. If there is just an accusation then no ticket can be written. If the complainant wishes to file a citizen’s complaint they can. In an accident it is completely different. Then there is actual physical evidence of what happened to verify the eyewitness accounts. An officer does not have to see the accident to write a ticket. Thats why they teach course like Crash Investigation I and II, Vehicle Dynamics and Accident Reconstruction. I always subpeona the other driver. Sometimes the other driver does not show up and there is not enough physical evidence that I observed to continue with the case and I tell the prosecutor to drop it. Sometimes there is plenty of physical evidence to go forward. I have never lost an accident case in court.

As to the OP, you were behind a car too close to stop when it did. You were following too close. It being not worth your trouble to fight is up to you. I don’t know the laws in CT and even with cites I don’t know how the law has been interpreted in the state. I can tell you that following too close is a serious infraction in NJ, 5 points. Personally in the accident you describe I would probably have written a careless driving ticket instead(2 points). I have only written someone for tailgating a few times since it is so serious a charge.

37

I find it interesting that the two UK posters are citing a different logic than the US posters. Honestly, with my driving style I would favor the UK approach. Living in the states though, all (anecdotal) evidence I’ve seen points to hitting someone from behind will be your fault.

38

[QUOTE=Joey P]

I sure as hell wouldn’t pay for that. I’m not saying I wouldn’t pay for the damage I caused, but NO money changes hand without at least a police report, and a check written from myself to the other party. I’d be concerened they would take the cash and then file a claim anyways.
[/QUOTE]

If I was clearly at fault, I would jump at such an opportunity. They could file a claim later if they wanted, but they sure as hell wouldn’t know my name to file a claim on me. That’s what the cash is for.

Why would you want the police and insurance companies involved when you could pay a couple of hundred bucks and be done with it instead of paying:

  1. The increased insurance premium
  2. The citation that the officer writes
  3. Traffic school
  4. Court costs
39

[QUOTE=jtgain]
If I was clearly at fault, I would jump at such an opportunity. They could file a claim later if they wanted, but they sure as hell wouldn’t know my name to file a claim on me. That’s what the cash is for.

[/QUOTE]

“Officer he didn’t stop, he just hit me and kept going…here’s his licensce plate number.” Remember, you’re dealing with people already running a scam.

40

The OP reminds me very much of an accident I was in a few years ago, when a brand new, 15 yr. old driver rear ended me. Putting it simply, the car in front of me stopped, I stopped, she didn’t stop in time.

I told the investigating officer that I didn’t think she was reckless or careless – except that she didn’t stop in time – and he chose not to give her a ticket. Instead he told her “You have the obligation to be aware of what the car in front of you is doing, and if it stops, you have to be far enough behind it to stop safely. So even though I’m not giving you a ticket, you’re at fault for this accident.”