Guest

Mac, a few days ago, a good friend of mine was involved in a serious auto accident in his Chevy Tahoe, along a four lane divided highway, near where he lives. The island is grass. The speed limit is 55 mph, and he was driving in the (south) left (fast lane) with the cruise control set on 60 mph. This particular night was dark, clear and dry. The road was flat and straight. He had a clean driving record, up to this point.

Along this stretch of highway are breaks in the island for traffic travelling the other way (north), to make U turns. They can make a U turn only and there is an accel lane, next to the fast lane, going south, with dotted lines where they must yield and then merge into oncoming traffic.

All of a sudden, a Dodge Durango SUV making a U turn from the other way, instead of yielding, cuts right into the fast lane at a 45 degree angle, instead of using the merge lane. My friend had no time to brake to avoid T-boning the Dodge, so he swerves into the right lane and missed him, but started sliding onto the right shoulder and overcorrected, turning back to the left and nailed the Dodge on the right rear. This caused the Dodge's rear end to turn perpendicular to the road, and it flipped over on the roof, and was totaled.

My friend's Tahoe did a 360 turn and skidded upright onto the grass median strip, with only minor damage to the left front. Fortunately, neither driver was hurt. The guy driving the Dodge got out OK through the drivers side window, which had shattered. There were no witnesses, although it was rush hour, and no other drivers actually saw what happened.

Three Maryland State Troopers were on the scene within 2 minutes, and they shut the whole road down. One Trooper interviewed my friend while another interviewed the driver of the Dodge. Of course, they had two different stories.

The trooper told my friend that if he had stayed in his lane and T-boned the Dodge, the driver of the Dodge would be at fault. Then he said that since he swerved to the right to avoid hitting the Dodge and was not in "control" of the Tahoe, he was guilty of negligent driving and he had no other choice except to give him the ticket. Alcohol or speed was not a factor.

So here he is, trying to avoid a probable fatal accident, and HE ends up getting the ticket for negligent driving!!! The trooper gave him the ticket and told him not to pay it, that he should go to court. The driver of the Dodge told the other trooper in his statement, that he was an ex-Maryland State Trooper, although my friend said he didn't look more than 40.

So now my Bud with the Tahoe is going to court, doesn't have a trial date yet, but he's got a good local Criminal/Traffic lawer from a referral. He is concerned about the other guy telling everyone he's an ex-trooper. That is heresay as far as I'm concerned. What does that have to do with the accident? My friends auto insurance company informed him that they believe it was the other guys fault and will NOT compensate him for the loss of his Dodge or anything else. It will go to arbitration.

What will the judge think if my friend brings along a lawyer on just a negligent ticket charge? He wonders if the judge will think he's scared that he's guilty OR he's smart enough to defend himself with Counsel, because he thinks it's the other guy's fault? What happens if the Trooper or other guy doesn't show in court, will the judge throw it out?

I don't think I left anything out, but I would appreciate your view on this matter, as a lawman. I would like to point out that the above is exactly the way my friend said it went down, and no, no, no...it's not me.

Thanks, Mac







[Modified by FXT, 12:17 PM 11/27/2002]

Mac

Okay, Patrick- here's my thoughts and I hope it helps. Sorry if I ran so long. I hope your friend wasn't injured.

Mac!!

*******************************

First off, remember that two separate legal processes are involved here- criminal and civil. It's important to understand what role police play in both aspects.

The crux of civil matters is a dispute between two parties- in this case, two drivers. As such, the matter is decided on the balance of probabilities. If it comes to a civil trial, the judge listens to both sides of the story and what they bring to the table and decides which story is more probable. Civil matters deal with things like insurance and costs for repairs, injuries, loss of wages, etc.

The expression "at fault" is associated with civil process. Insurance agents, adjusters and, in some cases, non-police investigators use information gathered from statements of the drivers, examination of the vehicles, police reports, witnesses and so on to establish to what degree of liability each party is responsible for the collision. If the two parties can't agree, it goes to arbitration and if that doesn't solve it, it goes to civil trial.

It may be possible that your friend, because of his reaction and subsequent loss of control, may be found partially at fault for the collision. If he'd continued driving in his lane and taken no evasive actions (other than braking) the situation would be more clear cut- 100% the other guy's fault. It would likely have been a more serious collision as well. Hard choice to be made in 1/10th of a second, hm? If found partially liable, this might affect your friend's insurance coverage but, from the sounds of things, his insurance company is standing behind him.

For civil process, police collect the names of drivers, vehicle registration, names of witnesses and give a description of the collision scene as they viewed it to the insurance companies. Police usually seek not to become embroiled in civil matters for a variety of reasons, mainly because their primary role is dealing with criminal matters. Police represent the state, not either party, and don't want to be seen as favoring one party over the other as this represents a conflict. Police don't normally take statements unless as part of their criminal investigation but will usually provide copies of those statements for the civil process if requested to do so.

Criminal matters involve the violation of law; in this case, the state traffic legislation. Rather than being a dispute between two parties, criminal matters are the state versus the individual. As such, the "burden of proof" for evidence is remarkably different. In a criminal trial, the prosecutor must provide compelling evidence of wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt.

The police role in criminal matters is to investigate if sufficient evidence exists to support allegations of criminal wrongdoing. In the case of a collision, much of the same information is collected, but usually in more detail, with a view to prosecution. The police are acting on behalf of the state in collecting evidence. The police role is not to assign fault- that is a civil law function.

In the case as you've described it, the other driver made the decision to make an unsafe lane change or unsafe u-turn. Your friend reacted and lost control. Finding evidence of the other driver's action is almost impossible (his word against your friend's), but your friend left a trail of skid marks when he lost control, then there's the collision and finally, the aftermath of the Dodge flipped and your friend skidded.

Since the police blocked the highway, it was likely to measure and record this evidence and try to establish the sequence of events leading up to, during and following the collision. That is the key to proving what happened, when and why.

Since speed is not an issue, the other driver's story was likely something like he'd merged safely (or was about to) and your friend came up behind him, swerved to pass on the right, lost control and hit him. The police have to establish at what point your friend reacted in relation to the merge lane. This will show whether your friend was not paying attention (ie: didn't see the other driver until too late- aka negligence), was attempting to pass on the right and lost control (ie: unsafe passing, fail to yield) or was reacting, as your friend said, to the other driver's unsafe manuver. This is not an exact science and it's not easy to do.

Most officers only have basic collision investigation courses. Some police officers (including myself) have taken extra courses to learn the skills to figure out that sequence of events. There are further courses which allow a police officer to provide expert testimony on the sequence of events and draw conclusions based upon the evidence as a collision analyst and/or reconstructionist but officers with this training are few and far between.

As for the other driver saying he is an ex-Maryland police officer, that's entirely possible but the relevence to the collision is nil. The only reason to mention something like that is he's trying to curry favour from the police investigator. Right or wrong (I vote wrong) some police officers will cut other officers breaks, even ex-officers. If the driver looked pre-40s, his status as an ex-officer may have had more to do with his conduct than his age, if you get me.

Any police officer who tells you that he is compelled to give a ticket is not telling the whole truth. There is pressure, especially in the case of a serious collision, for tickets to be laid. Most police services take the view that there are very few true accidents; most collisions are as a result of negligence or wrongdoing. As such, if the officer had chosen not to ticket your friend or the other driver, he may have been called upon to explain that decision by his superiors; not a easy choice but it is still up to the police officer's discretion.

When a police officer tells you to fight the ticket he's just given you, I would have to wonder at his motivation. Either he's not confident that the evidence is sufficient to support the allegation (in which case, he shouldn't issue a ticket) or he's not giving the ticket of his own accord (ie: one of the other officers felt the evidence was sufficient and asked this officer to issue a ticket on his behalf) and is expressing his personal opinion.

Since I'm not walking in that cop's shoes, I can't tell you what inspired the cop but I'll say this- if the cop says fight the ticket, your friend should fight the ticket.

Here in BC, traffic court is at the bottom end of the scale. Traffic court is normally presided over by a Justice of the Peace rather than a Provincial Judge. The prosecution is done by the police officers themselves rather than by the public prosecutor.

Here, if you dispute a ticket and you don't show up for court, the court will deem you guilty and the next time you try to renew your driver's licence, you won't be able to do so until all fines are paid. If you dispute a ticket and the police officer doesn't show up (it happens) or the witness doesn't show (it happens often), the ticket is quashed and you walk out free. I'm not sure if this is the case in Maryland.

Here, if the accused brings a lawyer, the police officer may request a public prosecutor deal with the case. I've never done so but I've only hit that situation once and I felt confident in my ability to prosecute the ticket.

It is possible to defend oneself successfully in traffic court. In my experience, most people disputing tickets do so personally. Remember the prosecutor must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, so the police would have to bring the other driver as a witness and then introduce the evidence collected. Unless one of the officers is qualified as a traffic analyst, his interpretation of skidmarks and vehicle damages would only be opinion evidence, rather than expert testimony.

Although it may not be necessary, I would recommend your friend engage a lawyer. The judge's job is there to decide whether the allegation of the ticket is valid beyond a reasonable doubt. Court can be intimidating and most of us aren't articulate enough to ask the right questions and make the right points regarding the evidence, all while acting within the rules of the court.

I hate sending anyone to a lawyer; police and lawyer are adversarial, but that's mainly because 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

Guest

Mac, thanks so much for taking the time to clearly and concisely explain this rather complex situation. I didn't realize there were so many factors and decisions to weigh. Your post was an abundant mountain of information which probably most of us didn't know. No one was injured in any way.

I will cut and paste your answer on a WordDocument and email to my Bud. Of course I would never tell him it came from the FCR!! Where else but the FCR can you get info like this? :cheers:

I'm sure the facts you have presented will make him feel more at ease, not because they are necessarily in his favor, but that he will have the "straight scoop" ahead of time, instead of wondering what might happen at the trial. He has never been to court, but he is very articulate and precise in his choice of words. He did get the lawyer simply because he doesn't know the court "system".

Again, many thanks, we are lucky to have a guy like you on the FCR!! :yesnod:

67HEAVEN

Okay, we've got a cop and several engineers. All we need are a priest, a rabbi and a few ladies of the evening and we've got one hell of a party. :jester

I'll bring the ladies. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Mac

You're more than welcome, Patrick. I don't bring technical expertise or extensive Corvette knowledge to the Forum, so I have to compensate with my other 'gifts' so to speak.

I'm not longer the Forum's Token Mountie, as you may have discovered, if you've read C1-C2 recently; he goes by the name Mountie43488- Keith Bramhill and he's considering the purchase of a 66 BB vert. :cheers:

Actually, I had another Mountie contact me by IM the week before the Spew and Improved Software took effect. Ron Hunchiak is now retired and enjoying his SWC 327-300 in Comox on Vancouver Island. :cheers:

The Canajun invasion continues on schedule. ;)

Guest

Mac, I emailed your response to my friend Jim, who is actually my former next door neighbor, where I used to live a couple months ago. He said he was glad he wasn't driving his 2002 Porsche 911 TT at the time! :lol:

Anyway he says thanks to Officer Mac, his nerves are starting to cool down. He did pick up a copy of the official Police Report at the MSP Rockville Barricks today though; he was very curious to read what the accident report said.

After all the info I relayed to you regarding the specifics of the accident, here is the EXACT text, as written up by the Trooper at the scene:

"Vehicle #1 (my friends Tahoe) and Vehicle #2 (the Dodge) were both travelling S/B on Md. Rt.#355 at Comus Road. At this time, for unknown reasons, the operator of Vehicle #1 lost control of the vehicle, and struck the left rear side of Vehicle #2. Due to the collision, Vehicle #2 overturned in the middle of the roadway".

That's it ????? Jim is really PO'ed that nothing was mentioned of the U turn, the merge lane or anything else. It looks to him like the Trooper wanted to stay of it and just did the minimum work required to do his job....or he was trying to protect his brother in arms.

Anyway, he said if this situation ever happens again, he's just going to go ahead and nail em, so he doesn't end up gettin the shaft, like he's getting now. :yesnod:

clem zahrobsky

in some states including PA where i live it is illegal to drive in the left lane(passing lane) on a divided highway unless you are passing another car. what is the law in your state? :chevy

Mac

The "left lane for passing only" law makes all kinds of sense. Unfortunately, here in British Columbia, we don't have that law. The Department of Highways posts "slower vehicles- keep right" signs every couple miles which have no effect.

We get lots of drivers who pull into the passing lane and set the cruise control at exactly the speed limit or less. A guy I know does this all the time and he was complaining to me about these erratic drivers who keep passing him on the right and then cutting him off, waving their fists, honking horns, tailgating, etc. :boxing I asked why he insisted on using the passing lane, which he refers to as the through lane. His conviction is that the speed limit is absolute so if he's doing the speed limit, no-one should pass him. I asked him if he also like to drive with his left turn signal on for no reason. He didn't get that either. :nonod:

Guest

Same here in Maryland, Mac. We have "slower traffic keep right", but I don't think there is a law. One law I do know that is in effect in Maryland is the "Boulevard Law". Don't know the exact details, but it basically says that the traffic on the main thoroughfare has the right of way over ANY vehicles which turn on or merge into the main drag.

My personal code of driving ethics is "keep right except to pass". When I'm in the left lane passing someone, and if there is another vehicle riding my butt, I signal that I'm going over to the right so they don't get an attitude. :blueangel:

Desertdawg

This time of year, all the snowbirds are migrating down here with their left turn signals on...And none of us locals know why either....... :confused: :eek:

Mac

Oh, that's easy! It's because winter has arrived here in Canajun Land. I'm surprised you didn't figure that one out for yourself, Desertdawg!! :eek: :lol:

Desertdawg

DOH !!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I meant, Why the left blinker is always on....

I know why they come down here, It's to annoy us, and give the rest of you nartherners a break... :smash: :smash: :smash:

macnav

Mac,

Just curious. Is it still illegal to pass on the right in BC (on a four-lane road)?

Mac

They've modified that section and made it so that it encompasses two-lane roads as well, but, as it stands, it is a violation only if you cross a solid line to do so.

An example of a solid line is the fog line on the edge of highway (marking paved shoulder) or, in the case of a four-lane highway, if the line between the left (passing) and right (curb) lane is solid. So you can't drive on the paved shoulder to pass someone and, in the case of a four line, divided or otherwise, if the line between like directioned lanes is single solid instead of usual broken, you're not allowed to change lanes. Unless they've changed it again, at this point, it's not an offence to pass on the right unless you cross a solid line to do so.

There are a few little funky rules which regarding traffic control which make BC unique. On narrow country roads, if a centre line is marked at all, it's normally a single line. The Highway Act (as opposed to the Motor Vehicle Act) says the single line allows passing when the manuever can be completed safely. Most people assume the solid line means no passing and abide by such.

BC also has the pedestrian controlled intersection traffic lights- a bizarre concept to my consideration. If you approach a traffic light with a flashing green, that means the light can be controlled by pedestrians wishing to cross the street. I just about got in a collision when I first came to BC because in Ontario, a flashing green light meant an advanced green (permitting me to turn left) so when the red turned flashing green, I started to turn left and had a near miss.

Here's how it's supposed to work. If pedestrians push the button, the light will turn red so traffic must stop to allow them to cross. Now, here's the really bizarre twist- once the pedestrians have crossed safely, it is permissible to drive through the red light, rather than waiting for it to return to green. HUH? Drive through a red light? Yep- it's the law. The light is like an enforced cross walk to make drivers stop to allow passage but once the pedestrian is gone, the light will cycle back to flashing green, but you don't need to wait for it.

Finally, here's a funky one. In a few jurisdictions, it is illegal to turn right at an intersection if the light you're facing is red (Quebec, for instance). Here in BC, it is permitted to turn right on the red, but it is also permissible to turn left on the red at the intersection of a one-way street. So if you're facing a red light at an intersection with a one-way street where traffic is going towards your left, you can turn left on the red light with the same caveats as turning right on the red- the maneuver is only to be made if the lane is clear and it's safe to do so.

As a general rule, we don't advertize these little bizarre exceptions because our drivers are bad enough that they don't need any encouragement to make even more bone-headed moves, but I'm counting on everyone's discretion! ;)

67HEAVEN

Mac,

I've always been amazed at how articulate you can be, Mac......you know, posting to the forum while cruising the Trans Canada looking for bad dudes. :D

How's about during your next hi-speed pursuit you give us a blow-by-blow commentary!!!! :jester :jester Just don't tell the guys in Odd Topic or we'll never get a word in edgewise. :lol:

Mac

When you write as many reports as I do, after a while, the words just kinda flow. Remember, if you can't blind 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bull.

Our words versus their smilies.... hmmm.... sounds like a one-sided battle, except that most of those guys don't apparently have lives. How many posts does Noggles have now? :lol: :jester

Desertdawg

Noggles
Omnipresent Moderator
The Unaposter

47179 posts [100%]
Freedom is the Right of all Sentient Beings



[Modified by Desertdawg, 11:08 PM 11/18/2002]

PRNDL

FXT, Based on the contents of that police report..... that official police report of the accident...... I would say your friend is screwed. MJ