Contest or Mitigate Ticket given for collision?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wsugrad07

New Member
I was recently involved in an collison on June 4, 2007. The incident went as follows. I was traveling in the left lane, doing a little under the correct speed (about 33 in a 35), it was the first rain after a very hot week. In the area I was traveling, I was coming up over a slight slope with a curve, in this area, the stop light is visible before the first car or two.

So, I'm coming up over the slope and curve, and the light is green, but as I get closer I see a car at the light stopped, so I try to stop but I slide. Now that I'm seeing that I'm getting closer and not stopping I try to move as to not to cause too much damage to the car, and I see the car is stopped for a cop with his lights flashing (no siren) making a left turn. I hit the driver side bumper of the car in front of me. My car suffered minor damage (parking lamp needs to be replaced).

After the officer got me to calm down he informed me that he didn't know if I would be ticketed or not because of the cop upholding traffic. About a week later a ticket shows up in the mail, I was charged with violation 46.61.400: Failure to control vehicle speed to avoid a collision. and because of the circumstances leading up to the accident I'm faced with the option to contest or mitigate the ticket. I'm torn on which way to go.

I would love to have the ticket removed from my record, but because I hit the rear of another car it could be almost impossible to do so, I just want to pick the best option for my circumstance, I just graduated from college, applying for grad school, and I simply cannot afford the ticket or the increase in my insurance (i have no other tickets on my record) What do I do?:confused:
 
Even though it was bad weather, you still get a ticket for causing an accident. You are going to have to find a way to afford the ticket if you owe it. If you do not pay then your license gets suspended.

I am not familiar with the traffic laws in your state but unless you want ti dispute the ticket, I know of no way to get it removed from your record.
 
I understand the consequences of non-payment, I don't plan on going that route. I was torn between choosing to mitigate the ticket or contest the ticket. So, are you suggesting I forget both, and just pay the $163 ticket?
 
Well obviously you want the least effect possible.

There is nothing to contest, however. Had you been driving properly, then you would not have had a wreck.

So go for the mitigation. Beg and plead. Cry. Whimper.
 
Well obviously you want the least effect possible.

There is nothing to contest, however. Had you been driving properly, then you would not have had a wreck.

So go for the mitigation. Beg and plead. Cry. Whimper.

And that's where the confusion pops in, how was I driving improperly? No distractions, more like a freak accident, even the person I hit said it to me. Either way I'll just tell the judge the truth and pray for the best, I'll forego the crying and whimpering...:no:
 
...
And that's where the confusion pops in, how was I driving improperly?
....

There is no confusion.

If you were driving properly, you would not have had an accident.

If you were driving improperly, you would have an accident.

This is a simple concept.



Definitions of ipso facto on the Web:

* "by that very fact," as in: Anyone who wears chartreuse socks is ipso facto unfit to make fashion decisions. non sequitur
www.princeton.edu/~jimpryor/general/vocab/glossary.html

* ("By that very fact"). Eg To be a person is ipso facto to have moral worth. (Similar: eo ipso.)
www.shef.ac.uk/~phil/other/philterms.html

* Latin for "by the very act" (that is automatically)
members.aol.com/gsvloc/gd_glo1.htm

* [Latin.] "By the mere fact."
www.iejs.com/glossary/Glossary_I.htm

* by the fact itself; "ipso facto, her innocence was established"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Ipso facto is a Latin phrase meaning by that very fact. It is a technical term used in philosophy and law.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipso_facto
 
There is no confusion.

If you were driving properly, you would not have had an accident.

If you were driving improperly, you would have an accident.

This is a simple concept.



Definitions of ipso facto on the Web:

* "by that very fact," as in: Anyone who wears chartreuse socks is ipso facto unfit to make fashion decisions. non sequitur
www.princeton.edu/~jimpryor/general/vocab/glossary.html

* ("By that very fact"). Eg To be a person is ipso facto to have moral worth. (Similar: eo ipso.)
www.shef.ac.uk/~phil/other/philterms.html

* Latin for "by the very act" (that is automatically)
members.aol.com/gsvloc/gd_glo1.htm

* [Latin.] "By the mere fact."
www.iejs.com/glossary/Glossary_I.htm

* by the fact itself; "ipso facto, her innocence was established"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Ipso facto is a Latin phrase meaning by that very fact. It is a technical term used in philosophy and law.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipso_facto

Thank you for your responses, although the sarcasm was not needed nor appreciated. I came here for some insight not to be talked to as if I was wasting your time. Anywho thank you and have a blessed day.:yes:
 
Thank you for your responses, although the sarcasm was not needed nor appreciated. I came here for some insight not to be talked to as if I was wasting your time. Anywho thank you and have a blessed day.:yes:

Sarcasm?

I was explaining the law.

There was no sarcasm!

Show me one thing that was incorrect or inaccurate....Well, I'm waiting!

You would not believe the number of people who think just like you.

I've had to explain it hundreds of times.:angel
 
In every state I know of, the police assign fault to only one party. When a vehicle tags another from behind, it is almost without exception the fault of the vehicle moving from behind ... and since an unmoving vehicle can NOT be the cause of a collision, that leaves you doubly at fault. Legally, that is.

Even traveling under the speed limit can be unsafe if the conditions are such that the speed is unsafe and does not permit proper reaction and braking distance. Sliding and striking another vehicle can be considered prima facie evidence of unsafe speed.

However, this is not to say that an insurance company or civil court might decide to share fault or minimize your responsibility. But, as far as the citation goes, you are pretty much guilty as charged.

You can always go before a court and essentially beg for mercy, or you can see if your state has a traffic school you are eligible to attend. That school should prevent the citation from effecting your insurance.

- Carl
 
Carl, dang it, you're giving him accurate information.

He's gonna get mad!

:dgrin
 
In every state I know of, the police assign fault to only one party. When a vehicle tags another from behind, it is almost without exception the fault of the vehicle moving from behind ... and since an unmoving vehicle can NOT be the cause of a collision, that leaves you doubly at fault. Legally, that is.

Even traveling under the speed limit can be unsafe if the conditions are such that the speed is unsafe and does not permit proper reaction and braking distance. Sliding and striking another vehicle can be considered prima facie evidence of unsafe speed.

However, this is not to say that an insurance company or civil court might decide to share fault or minimize your responsibility. But, as far as the citation goes, you are pretty much guilty as charged.

You can always go before a court and essentially beg for mercy, or you can see if your state has a traffic school you are eligible to attend. That school should prevent the citation from effecting your insurance.

- Carl

Thank you for your response and actually taking the time to explain it to me, it's greatly appreciated:)
 
Sarcasm?

I was explaining the law.

There was no sarcasm!

Show me one thing that was incorrect or inaccurate....Well, I'm waiting!

You would not believe the number of people who think just like you.

I've had to explain it hundreds of times.:angel

Well do me a favor and take a look back and tell me where I even said that you were giving incorrect or inaccurate information? Sounds like your assuming and taking it a little personal. What I saw was sarcasm a matter-of-fact type of tone, if it wasn't then so be it. But, personally it wasn't helpful in the manner you provided the information, it was short with very little explanation, with a theory that was flawed (i.e. driving improperly leads to accidents). And the whole "You would not believe the number of people who think just like you." I don't know exactly what your getting at, but if you feel so irritated to answer inquiries on this message board or in life dealing with these type of situations, maybe you shouldn't do so. Getting upset gets you no where and it's quite unpleasant. And personally it makes me chuckle. I came here for help simple as that, if you don't want to do so, then by all means move on to the next thread. I see that this thread is going beyond its inital intentions you may if you like reply(which you probably will) but, I will not respond, no need too. I do hope whatever is bothering or upsetting you doesn't do so for much longer. Blessings;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top