Wrecked the Trac

[Scott Gabriel]

I had to go down to Cincy on New Years Eve because my grandma is in the hospital, and on New Years Day, I took my sister (who staid the night at the hospital) back to her house. On returning to the Hospital, I hit some ice on an overpass on the highway, causing the truck to make a 90degree turn into the right lane and hit the guy next to me.



Everyone was ok, Luckily I had went alone, so my wife and son weren't with me, and the guy in the car had his wife, but not their grandkids (thank god!!)



His car had to be towed, and mine was drivable. Its going in the shop Friday to start the process. Luckily my wife and I have decent insurance and Rental car coverage, or it would have really put a damper on things. I also got a ticket for failure to maintain reasonable control, which I will be taking to court (to at least see if i can lower the ticket cost)





Heres the pics of the trac:

The guys 2007 Honda Accord Ex was damaged on the rear driverside door, busted out that window as well, and damaged the fenderwell.





Hope Others Had a Happy New Years!!





ScottG



ps. NO IDEA where to put this at

 

[Todd Z]

Glad your ok........ Glad everyone is ok...



I saw Wrecked, I did expect a lot worse....



Let us know how the repair goes..



Todd Z

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Scott,



Sorry to hear about the wreck. Glad you are okay.



Why are you planning to fight the ticket? It sounds like you were given a ticket for an offense that you clearly can't deny commiting????



TJR

 

[George T]

The main part is your not hurt and neither is the other driver.



The damage does not look major. I bet you could it yourself except the painting.



GeorgeT.

 

[Paul H]

Glad you and everyone else is fine. Sorry about the Trac though.



Let us know how you make out.



Paul H

 

[Scott Gabriel]

Why are you planning to fight the ticket? It sounds like you were given a ticket for an offense that you clearly can't deny commiting????



TJR

I know I was invovled in an accident, put I'm not understanding the "reasonable control" part. I was going 15 under on a highway and hit ice that I couldn't see. There was at least 4 other accidents in that stretch that night. I personally think there was no way to "reasonably control" that situation. No mater what speed I took, I would have lost some control.



I'm not looking to get it dropped, I just want to see if I can get the fine lowered, or lOwer the ammount of points its going to add to my license

 

[Dre L]

failure to maintain reasonable control

15 under on a highway and hit ice that I couldn't see. There was at least 4 other accidents in that stretch that night

That sounds like a BS ticket, I've never heard of such a ridiculous citation. I think someone was trying to get in an extra ticket or be a prick. I say you should fight it all the way, or sue the city / state for "failure to reasonably remove ice from a major roadway."



I've seen overpasses and bridges in the SOUTH with automatic de-icing systems. Your state is negligent at the least.



Glad to hear you're ok, the Trac and you could look much worse.

 

[KentheREALone Z]

Nobleman-

BS? Here's what it sounds like to me;

1) Scott is likely a male under 35 yrs. old

2) He's driving a 4-wheel drive SUV (or looks like it to an officer), so it's assumed he was driving too confident in conditions that were unsafe

3) My experience, in the Northern States, it's always somebody's fault

Yeah, probably BS



Glad no one was hurt Scott. Good luck.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Scott G,



My thinking and reason for asking was based on the fact that it seems you are guilty by definition.



"Failure to maintain reasonable control" seems pretty clear given that you got in an accident.



If you had maintained reasonable control you wouldn't have gotten in the accident, or so I would assume the judge/magistrate will state. The fact that you lost control and had the accident makes the case that you had the failure.



I hope you can get it reduced, but as written I don't see that you have a leg to stand on in fighting the ticket. Still, simply showing up often gets these things reduced.



TJR

 

[Darrel Chaney01]

I'd fight it too. When you you hit ice it hard if not impossible to keep your vehicle under control. You end up just going along for the ride and you hope and pray you don't hit anything. Going 15 under the speed limit, I would think the judge would throw it out. There was something similar to that here years ago. The guy was driving a VW Beetle when he hit an ice patch right before a stoplight. The light was turning yellow and he knew it would be red before he got to it. He tried stopping, but that was not going to happen with the ice. So he kept his foot on the brake pedal, but also stared honking his horn. Fortunately he had changed his horn to a louder one and no one started through the light before he did. There was a cop behind that pulled him over though. He told him that he saw his brake lights and heard his horn, but he was going to give him a ticket anyway. He went to court and the judge threw it out. Good Luck.

 

[Dre L]

Still sounds like a load of crap to me. If that's the case, the other driver in the accord failed to maintain reasonable control when Scott's Trac hit a patch of ice. Had he maintained reasonable control, he would have not impacted Scott's Trac by applying the brakes in time, or was the Accord:



1. Speeding

2. Passing on the right

3. Driving in the blind spot of the Trac



I think the term "reasonable" comes into play here. Had there not been ICE on the road this would not have happened. However if Scott had been on his phone, blasting music, DUI, asleep, driving like an a$$hole, or had uncaged monkeys in the back seat which caused him to lose control, etc...



I don't think he's guilty by anything. The state should need to prove his guilt and his failure to reasonably handle a vehicle. They licensed him to drive, they certified he is capable of handling a vehicle, and there are mitigating circumstances in the form of ice, to which he already stated he was driving under the limit due to inclement conditions.



Around here a PO may give you a speeding ticket even if you are driving the limit, but conditions warrant otherwise. Our speed limit signs state "conditions permitting", and if Scott was in the wrong, I would imagine other citations issued to support why he failed to maintain reasonable control.



These laws are getting ridiculous. No wonder insurance rates are through the roof, unless the PO determined negligence or criminal actions, this should have just been a report with no citations stating "Sport Trac lost control due to Ice, was struck by Accord."

 

[Gypsy me]

Glad nobody was hurt and very sorry about the trac, damage to yours lsooks similar to mine but on the driver side.



as for that ticket.... HMMMM this is why I like states with a "no fault" law. everyone does the right thing, not speeding not driving irratically and an accident happens, no one or nothing to blaim but the conditions. No Fault states nobody gets a ticket. The General rule of thumb is to just swap insurance info and get on your way if you are able to drive.



Apparently, the cop felt somebody needed the ticket. I would go to court just as you are going to do and have that reduced not in just the fine but for what the ticket should have read. No fault due to conditions.

 

[Shelby Crane]

I would think this would fit under "failure to maintain lane."



All in all, it should just be an accident but the police issue a citation so the insurance companies can place blame somewhere.

 

[Richard Taylor]

Ohio has some strange rules.



If you call in an accident, the officer will issue a ticket to one of the drivers regardless of the amount of damage.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rgt, ironbar,



That's as it should be. If you call in an accident, someone should get a ticket...one or both of the drivers.



Anyone seen the movie "Hot Fuzz?"

It's called a 'Car Collission' not a 'Car Accident' as accident implies it was no one's fault!

I think that's pretty logical.



TJR

 

[Dre L]

someone should get a ticket...one or both of the drivers

Can't agree with that. If you're driving and a ferret jumps on the highway, a patrolman shoots at the ferret to get it off the highway, but as he is shooting a kung fu monkey chops his hand and the bullet hits you in the neck. You fail to maintain control of your vehicle due to your blood spraying all over the windshield, and your steering wheel. you can't see and you can't get a grip on the wheel, so the Trac swerves into the next lane and hits an Accord. You expect a ticket for that or was it the patrolman's (and thereby the state's) negligence?



Substitute the patrolman with the ice and you have the same scenario. As long as you took reasonable measures not to drive recklessly in the foul weather, no citation (Fine to the state) is required. If the officer cares to state in their report that the Trac lost control due to ice and interfered with the Accord's right of way, that should suffice in terms of fault and insurance requirements. I don't see where the state gets to collect some revenue where there is no criminal act or violation of traffic law, and again where the state could have taken reasonable measures to control ice on bridges and overpasses which are susceptible to freezing.



Sue the state, get the Trac fixed on their dime.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Yep, Nobleman..."failure to stay in lane" would be a valid ticket in your monkey, feret, blood spray scenario. It would be "justified". That doesn't necessarily mean one would be given such a ticket as many police are nice guys (gals) and don't want to add insult to injury.



The reasons for the failure, whether it to be to maintain a lane, or to maintain control aren't at issue, for if they were, everyone would be able to come up with a good excuse as a reason. Nope, when it comes to failure reasons matter little, only the cold hard fact that there was a failure need come into play.



Heck, if one keels over the wheel with an instant, massive heart attack, loses control, and hits someone else, they are still liable for the ticketed offense....typically failure to maintain lane or somesuch.



Accidents don't just happen. Should the "other guy's" insurance take the brunt of it because you had a "good excuse" for hitting them? Of course not. In the fictitious examples given someone crossed the line and hit someone else...the reasons matter very little; the fact is that the other guy was on his/her side of the road, doing nothing wrong. The same cannot be said for the guy/gal that crossed the road...they may very well have been doing nothing wrong UNTIL they crossed the road, but they did cross the road, thus the failure, thus the ticket.



TJR

 

[Dre L]

None of that warrants a fine. As much as you cite fault, there is none, and no reason for punishment, monetary or otherwise. Fact is fact and the report only need state that this driver lost control due to road conditions and interfered with the other driver's right of way. Where is the basis for a monetary punishment?

The reasons for the failure, whether it to be to maintain a lane, or to maintain control aren't at issue, for if they were, everyone would be able to come up with a good excuse as a reason.

Of course they are at issue. How is the "at fault" party's insurance company supposed to defend itself from losses if there were mitigating circumstances? All circumstances of the incident must be noted in the accident report, that is why it is a report. In my above statement "due to road conditions" is where the answer lies. No one mentions the road condition because that puts the state at fault. So now you have a cover-up, and to add insult to injury, we're going to take some cash from you as well? This isn't Fox News, this is a law enforcement agency, they need to report the facts and not be biased by some political revenue campaign to fleece citizens of their money.



On your argument, had the accord hit another car the driver would also be fined, and then the third driver if he hit another car. So the state gets to collect fine after fine after fine for failure to properly de-ice a roadway.



Accidents don't just happen, but the affected people are not always at fault. I know all about avoiding bad situations and preventing the precursors to an accident, but when something else comes into play, that is not your failure and most definitely not your fine. If I blind a pilot with a laser, that is not pilot error. If he failed to maintain reasonable control, the accident would have been much worse. After the accord hit him he could have shot into another lane, bounced off a divider, then across and over the railing onto the road below the overpass. Okay, maybe then I could understand a fine, but for sliding on some ice? Should Scott's insurance suffer because the other driver has a crappy car with more damage when Scott drives a fine automobile with quality craftsmanship? Should he have his insurance go up because the DOT failed to properly maintain a roadway?



It is abuse of power plain and simple. Now I understand why no fault insurance states came about.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Nobleman,



This is the first time you mentioned warranting a fine and punishment. I agree under many "failure to..." circumstances a fine and/or punishment is unwarranted. I have been talking about tickets indicating a violation, not a punitive fine, persay.



As I said, many police won't add insult to injury, so they will make sure to write up a ticket in such a way that a fine is negligible, if not absent. That doesn't mean there isn't a ticket issued. Some localities and authorites may not allow for a ticket for such failures that don't include a fine, in which case the police-person's hands are kind of tied. Still, most police can add comments to the ticket that would make it clear to the judge/magistrate that the driver was exhibiting reasonable care and was the victim of unexpected circumstance.



You keep using the words FAULT and BLAME. Clearly you and I have a differing opinion on what they mean in the context I am speaking. I am taking a basic, black and white definition. If the offense is, for example "failure to maintain control", then by definition if you lose control of your vehicle you are guilty of the offense and should be ticketed. It may not be your fault, but clearly you can't argue with the fact that you are guilty of the offense. Is that guilt due to one's own fault? Is it blameless or does it carry blame? Those are good questions, questions for a judge that defines the fine I suppose, not for a policeman on the scene.



No fault insurance came about in large part because insurers in that state lobbied hard for the change. No fault simply costs insurance companies less money, because there is no added expense in determining fault. Overall it costs insurance companies less money, but it does so by leveling the field and the burden of accidents on all claimants. People who are often at fault LOVE no-fault states. People who are rarely at fault abhore them. Said another way, responsible (rarely at fault) people pay more than they should in a no-fault state for their insurance. That's my theory anyway...



TJR

 

[Dre L]

This is the first time you mentioned warranting a fine and punishment. I agree under many "failure to..." circumstances a fine and/or punishment is unwarranted. I have been talking about tickets indicating a violation, not a punitive fine, persay.

Tickets usually imply a fine, otherwise it wouldn't be a ticket or a citation. I'm not sure what that would be, but if you re-read my posts, most of them mention some form of "where does the state get off collecting revenue on an accident?" I never had a ticket without a fine, I mean, what would the point of that be?

You keep using the words FAULT and BLAME.

I never used the word blame.

Clearly you and I have a differing opinion on what they mean in the context I am speaking. I am taking a basic, black and white definition. If the offense is, for example "failure to maintain control", then by definition if you lose control of your vehicle you are guilty of the offense and should be ticketed. It may not be your fault, but clearly you can't argue with the fact that you are guilty of the offense. Is that guilt due to one's own fault? Is it blameless or does it carry blame? Those are good questions, questions for a judge that defines the fine I suppose, not for a policeman on the scene.

What guilt? In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty are you not? Is it not the burden of the state to prove the accused is guilty? And guilty of what? How does failure to maintain control constitute an offense requiring judgement? I guess I have an issue with the wording of this "offense". That is a poorly written catch-all law which may have had intent to be used on really bad drivers, DUI / DWI, or reckless drivers, however it will unfairly punish people, as you said, shot in the neck, crossed by a deer, hit by falling concrete, sliding on ice, victims of OEM defects, etc... Why not a law for "failure to prevent catching a cold" or "failure to avoid death".



And if you stipulate that these are questions for a judge, then Scott has a case and should be able to argue this in front of a judge.