|
|
|
following too closely
- Thread starter slowbird
- Start date
Sativa Quemador
Well-known member
I know this isnt the answer you are looking for, but i have never taken the reduced charge, because the only thing that will reduce, is your fine.
in the grand scheme of things, you will pay more through insurance. Fight your ticket. the only thing you can lose is the difference in money from the original fine, to the reduced fine.
the prosecuter doesnt give a crap about you, or your points, all they want is your money.
who were you tailgating ? and for how long did the cop see you ? you could argue that the car in front slowed down as you passed the cop, or that you did hit your brakes, but were sliding on ice due to bare patches on the road.
in the grand scheme of things, you will pay more through insurance. Fight your ticket. the only thing you can lose is the difference in money from the original fine, to the reduced fine.
the prosecuter doesnt give a crap about you, or your points, all they want is your money.
who were you tailgating ? and for how long did the cop see you ? you could argue that the car in front slowed down as you passed the cop, or that you did hit your brakes, but were sliding on ice due to bare patches on the road.
You're looking for the "lesser and included charge of..." and there is none for follow too close. Follow too close is a lesser and included charge for careless, for example.
The Crown cares about prosecuting the charge. They have no control over the points (neither does the JP) and the court doesn't see the money.
Sativa Quemador
Well-known member
The crown doesnt care about proscuting the charge. If they did, they would never offer a lesser charge.
they just want the Most $$$ for the least amount of hassle.
Well I guess you know best. Carry on then.
slowbird
Well-known member
I was not tailgating anyone. Officer came after the fact. It was a motor vehicle collision. (not on my bike)
It occurred at an uncontrolled intersection on a 2 lane road where cars often slam on their brakes as people block the active lane to wait to make a Left. The reason most people slam on their brakes is because the intersection is right after a blind crest.
Roads were damp, with snow on the shoulders and it was -15 out. The guy infront of the guy I hit slammed on his brakes...guy infront of me slammed on his, I slammed on mine but slid into the back of his vehicle.
After posting this and visiting the scene I have decided to fight it outright. Any advice would be appreciative. I know about getting disclosure and all that but I have never been in an accident before, and I have never gotten a Ticket of this magnitude.
Also, I know minor mistakes on tickets usually mean squat, but I'd regret not asking. The box marker collision involved is not marked as yes. it's blank. Is that of no consequence?
It occurred at an uncontrolled intersection on a 2 lane road where cars often slam on their brakes as people block the active lane to wait to make a Left. The reason most people slam on their brakes is because the intersection is right after a blind crest.
Roads were damp, with snow on the shoulders and it was -15 out. The guy infront of the guy I hit slammed on his brakes...guy infront of me slammed on his, I slammed on mine but slid into the back of his vehicle.
After posting this and visiting the scene I have decided to fight it outright. Any advice would be appreciative. I know about getting disclosure and all that but I have never been in an accident before, and I have never gotten a Ticket of this magnitude.
Also, I know minor mistakes on tickets usually mean squat, but I'd regret not asking. The box marker collision involved is not marked as yes. it's blank. Is that of no consequence?
Last edited:
First the "collision involved" box on the ticket is of no consequence, that is merely a "statistics box" in that they use that for stats on how many tickets come as a result of a collision it is not material to the charge itself.
As for your defence, the fact that the people in front of you "slammed" on their brakes in and of itself is not a viable defence. The charge indicates that you were following too closely, (which by the mere wording states the officer believes that had you been following at a greater distance the collision was avoidable). That is the portion you need to focus on and is open to interpretation and debate. It sounds like your familiar with this intersection, (from your having sttaed people always seem to slam on their brakes due to the left turning lane). I would NOT mention this during any trial. As it begs the question if you knew this was common practice then why did you not foresee that happening in this instance and increase the distance between you and the vehicle in front? It "could" be the thing that sinks any defence you may offer up to the JP.
I am surprised the copper didin't just go with careless with the "anticipated" result being most people will plead out when offered by the crown to following too closely. It really will depend upon the JP. some will merely ask did you hit the vehicle in front of you from the rear? Yes then obviously you were following too closely. Others "may" take into account the road conditions at the time of the accident, (as reported by the attending officer not your reporting). Generally however, in my experience most will say the road conditions may have been a contributing factor, however, this also means that "a prudent driver" would have increased the following distances. Yes that is an exact quote from a JP...lol
As was stated fighting it will in the end cost you the price of a lawyer, (I wouldn't recommend a paralegal or a "ticket fighting" firm as they will take your money in exchange for a reduced fine). But if your convicted your insurance will increase. So in the end the cost of a lawyer versus the increased premiums should be the deciding factor. (Just don't think of the increased premiums from this ticket alone), as you have to consider what will happen should you be unfortunate enough to get another ticket during the time frame your rates are already increased.
As for your defence, the fact that the people in front of you "slammed" on their brakes in and of itself is not a viable defence. The charge indicates that you were following too closely, (which by the mere wording states the officer believes that had you been following at a greater distance the collision was avoidable). That is the portion you need to focus on and is open to interpretation and debate. It sounds like your familiar with this intersection, (from your having sttaed people always seem to slam on their brakes due to the left turning lane). I would NOT mention this during any trial. As it begs the question if you knew this was common practice then why did you not foresee that happening in this instance and increase the distance between you and the vehicle in front? It "could" be the thing that sinks any defence you may offer up to the JP.
I am surprised the copper didin't just go with careless with the "anticipated" result being most people will plead out when offered by the crown to following too closely. It really will depend upon the JP. some will merely ask did you hit the vehicle in front of you from the rear? Yes then obviously you were following too closely. Others "may" take into account the road conditions at the time of the accident, (as reported by the attending officer not your reporting). Generally however, in my experience most will say the road conditions may have been a contributing factor, however, this also means that "a prudent driver" would have increased the following distances. Yes that is an exact quote from a JP...lol
As was stated fighting it will in the end cost you the price of a lawyer, (I wouldn't recommend a paralegal or a "ticket fighting" firm as they will take your money in exchange for a reduced fine). But if your convicted your insurance will increase. So in the end the cost of a lawyer versus the increased premiums should be the deciding factor. (Just don't think of the increased premiums from this ticket alone), as you have to consider what will happen should you be unfortunate enough to get another ticket during the time frame your rates are already increased.
The investigating officer must have been new because he should have charged you with S.130 Careless Driving. There is a reasonable prospect for a conviction for the Careless, but zero prospect to get convicted for 'Following Too Closely' based on what you've described.
You can do some research and fight this yourself; any decent paralegal willing to go to trial should get this withdrawn/dismissed. Also don't make a stink about this before the 6 month statue of limitation, because the prosecutor can change the charge to 'Careless Driving' within six months of the accident through a Part III Summons.
6mth Limitation: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p33_e.htm#BK103
Part III Summons: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p33_e.htm#BK36
Regina v. Ouseley, 1973 CanLII 663 (ON CA) [COURT OF APPEAL]
http://canlii.ca/t/g182x
The mere fact of a rear-end collision is insufficient to make out a prima facie case that the accused was following too closely contrary to s. 105(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 202.
Gale, C.J.O.:-- The respondent was acquitted on appeal by trial de novo on a charge that he contravened s. 105(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 202. In part, that section is in these terms:
105(1) The driver or operator of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic on and the conditions of the highway.
At the trial it was proved that the respondent's car struck another vehicle which it was following, and that the driver of the lead vehicle had occasion to slow down gradually and stop just before the impact. There was no evidence whatever, apart from the impact, as to how closely behind the lead car the respondent's car was being driven at any time. As part of the Crown's case there was introduced a statement b y the respondent to the following effect: "I saw her brake ahead of me. I braked and started to skid and hit her." There was also evidence that the surface of the street was icy and not in good condition.
Mr. Campbell, on behalf of the Crown, asserts that i n those circumstances the Crown had made out a prima facie case. We do not agree. His proposition would go so far as to suggest that on each occasion where a rear-end collision occurs, at some fleeting second, the following car committed an offence under s. 105(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, and that nothing more need be proved than th e fact of the collision. In our view, the impact itself would sustain logical inferences other than that the respondent was following too closely and contravened s. 105(1). The trial Judge held, and we agree with him, that the collision may have been caused, quite logically, by inattention on the part of the respondent, or by excessive speed by him. He was not charged with careless driving, however, and we can see no reason why he should have been convicted of this offence, where there was no evidence whatever as to the distance which separated the two cars until the actual impact.
You can do some research and fight this yourself; any decent paralegal willing to go to trial should get this withdrawn/dismissed. Also don't make a stink about this before the 6 month statue of limitation, because the prosecutor can change the charge to 'Careless Driving' within six months of the accident through a Part III Summons.
6mth Limitation: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p33_e.htm#BK103
Part III Summons: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p33_e.htm#BK36
Regina v. Ouseley, 1973 CanLII 663 (ON CA) [COURT OF APPEAL]
http://canlii.ca/t/g182x
The mere fact of a rear-end collision is insufficient to make out a prima facie case that the accused was following too closely contrary to s. 105(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 202.
Gale, C.J.O.:-- The respondent was acquitted on appeal by trial de novo on a charge that he contravened s. 105(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 202. In part, that section is in these terms:
105(1) The driver or operator of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic on and the conditions of the highway.
At the trial it was proved that the respondent's car struck another vehicle which it was following, and that the driver of the lead vehicle had occasion to slow down gradually and stop just before the impact. There was no evidence whatever, apart from the impact, as to how closely behind the lead car the respondent's car was being driven at any time. As part of the Crown's case there was introduced a statement b y the respondent to the following effect: "I saw her brake ahead of me. I braked and started to skid and hit her." There was also evidence that the surface of the street was icy and not in good condition.
Mr. Campbell, on behalf of the Crown, asserts that i n those circumstances the Crown had made out a prima facie case. We do not agree. His proposition would go so far as to suggest that on each occasion where a rear-end collision occurs, at some fleeting second, the following car committed an offence under s. 105(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, and that nothing more need be proved than th e fact of the collision. In our view, the impact itself would sustain logical inferences other than that the respondent was following too closely and contravened s. 105(1). The trial Judge held, and we agree with him, that the collision may have been caused, quite logically, by inattention on the part of the respondent, or by excessive speed by him. He was not charged with careless driving, however, and we can see no reason why he should have been convicted of this offence, where there was no evidence whatever as to the distance which separated the two cars until the actual impact.
Jimsun
Well-known member
This could be a possible idea but do not quote me on this..
If you can do a waiting game say... go to court, request a trial and request a disclosure (need time to muster up a defense). This MAY give you 6 months from the time of the incident window for your next trial. At this point, it'll be over the time frame for the court to change your charge to careless driving. Now that you're only dealing with a following too closely, hire a paralegal and have that person help you drop the charge or have it change into an expensive parking ticket (if that person can) or an administrative ticket.
GL and keep us updated.
If you can do a waiting game say... go to court, request a trial and request a disclosure (need time to muster up a defense). This MAY give you 6 months from the time of the incident window for your next trial. At this point, it'll be over the time frame for the court to change your charge to careless driving. Now that you're only dealing with a following too closely, hire a paralegal and have that person help you drop the charge or have it change into an expensive parking ticket (if that person can) or an administrative ticket.
GL and keep us updated.
I was going to say what Hedo said as far as "the JP will tell you you should have been "driving according to conditions" and therefore they played no direct role in the crash", but the last 2 posts seem to have given you an out as long as your trial is after the statute of limitations pases.
The "six month" time limitation was brought up as the time limitation for the crown to amend the charge to careless. It is NOT applicable to having the charge dropped due to a 11b challenge. It also wouldn't be applicable IF the delays are caused by the accused and not by the crown. The crown could argue that the statue of limitations should be extended due to delays created by the accused. If it were in favour of the accused then everyone would simply do this in an attempt to have their charges dropped as well. So not really a viable route to go. Of course there is always the possibility one could get a JP that doesn't know what they are doing..lol
The route to go is get a copy of the decision supplied by 1Fly55, and have that with you when you attend the pre trial meeting with the crown and state that you are going to be using this as case law. Given that it is a ruling passed down by an appellant court they should be willing to withdraw the charge at that point, (although they may say they require time to research the case law, just in case there is a case(s) which ruled in the other direction and upheld a conviction).
Still not sure i would be relying upon a paralegal who again likely won't get you a not guilty verdict but perhaps a lesser charge, (which could still affect your insurance rates, of course keeping in mind that even IF your found not guilty does NOT prevent your insurer from increasing rates). It may just lessen the impact on your rates.
The route to go is get a copy of the decision supplied by 1Fly55, and have that with you when you attend the pre trial meeting with the crown and state that you are going to be using this as case law. Given that it is a ruling passed down by an appellant court they should be willing to withdraw the charge at that point, (although they may say they require time to research the case law, just in case there is a case(s) which ruled in the other direction and upheld a conviction).
Still not sure i would be relying upon a paralegal who again likely won't get you a not guilty verdict but perhaps a lesser charge, (which could still affect your insurance rates, of course keeping in mind that even IF your found not guilty does NOT prevent your insurer from increasing rates). It may just lessen the impact on your rates.
Salos Dafee
Well-known member
From Slowbird's posts, I understand that the cop did not see the collision,
but arrived after the event to look after the details and work on his quota.
The following defense seems effective to me:
Q: Did you see me driving?
A: No.
Q: Then can you tell us how closely I was following the vehicle ahead of me?
A: No.
Then address the Magistrate or Justice of the Peace, whoever is in charge.
"As the officer has no evidence to support the charge, I request it be dismissed."
Good luck, however you choose to address this charge.
but arrived after the event to look after the details and work on his quota.
The following defense seems effective to me:
Q: Did you see me driving?
A: No.
Q: Then can you tell us how closely I was following the vehicle ahead of me?
A: No.
Then address the Magistrate or Justice of the Peace, whoever is in charge.
"As the officer has no evidence to support the charge, I request it be dismissed."
Good luck, however you choose to address this charge.
The officer won't appear at trial, it'll just be the OP, the other driver and maybe some independent witnesses. So your questions will be asked to them, not the officer.
Officer will serve the other driver & witnesses with a summons to appear in court and give evidence for the crown at the OP's trial.
Unless this was investigated by the major collision bureau where their investigative techniques (mapping, photography, etc) are required... there won't be any officers present.
Sativa Quemador
Well-known member
any time i have fought a ticket, the cop was always there...
what makes you tink a cop wont show up at this trial ? the Officer HAS to show up. or the case is withdrawn, AFAIK
You have to think of the officer as a crown witness; when you previously fought tickets you were probably charged with "speeding"; in that case, the officer has to appear and testify as to how he got your speed and his training. When the officer does not show, there is no one to give evidence to your speeding charge... and in busy jurisdictions (Brampton, Toronto) rather than scheduling another trial date for the officer to show, they withdraw the charge.
In the OP's case, just from Sativa Quemador's questions you can see that the crown does not need the officer. The other driver is the crown witness, not the officer. What evidence will the officer give during the OP's trial? He didn't witness anything, he did not see the OP "Following Too Close". He didn't even see the OP driving. So what will he say at trial?
That's why the officer will not be present at the OP's trial; the crown does not require the officer's testimony to get a conviction from the OP.
Again this is 100% correct the officer did not witness the offence he laid the charge not based upon his "quota" but as a result of his investigation, (the statements that would have been made to him by the other driver, and perhaps any independent witnesses at the scene). All the officer would be able to testify to was he attended the scene and took statements and as a result of that investigation he determined a charge was substantiated. He wouldn't testify how close the OP was following or indeed ANYTHING about his driving. The crown would then call the other driver and any witnesses.
But as iFly55 stated the officer will not even be summonsed to court to testify. Think of it like say a shoplifting charge the officer gets the cal from store security, they attend and lay the charge based upon the statements provided by store security. If the case goes to trial the officer doesn't attend but rather the store security officer attends and gives their evidence, (as they witnessed the crime).
To the OP your best chance is to get as many cases you can find in which a not guilty verdict was entered, (best if they are appellant rulings), especially if they state that a collision is not sufficient, to obtain a conviction.
there is that possibility too.
Salos Dafee
Well-known member
I still think that the crown needs some reliable testimony about the OP's following distance, and nothing I have read in this thread suggests who will provide that testimony.
Imagine the driver in front saying, "He was following me so closely I was uncomfortable." Remember, drivers use mirrors to see behind them, and on the mirrors there is often a warning that cars may be closer than they appear. This disclaimer is necessary because the mirrors are curved, and the curve distorts the image, either magnifying or reducing it.
There are several things that are important when defending yourself in court.
1. Respect the magistrate or justice of the peace who is presiding. Address that person as "Your Worship" (or whatever term of respect you hear police or other staff use). When the magistrate says you can question a witness who has just testified against you, make sure you face the witness and ask questions. For example, "Can you tell us how many car lengths behind you I was?" and not "Well I made sure to leave a proper distance ..." because your story will be interrupted because you are allowed ONLY to ask questions.
2. Dress neatly and stand when called and speak in a distinct voice.
Try to act professionally.
3. Remember that this proceeding, while new to you, is dull as dishwater to most of the people in the room, and try not to waste their time. If you show up early, you can watch other people and learn a lot of things not to do.
4. If you lose this case, which you should not do from what I have read, try to see what went wrong, and how you can prevent a repetition. I have defended myself against quite a lot of charges in Toronto, and I lost some I should have won, but by and by I learned to win several I should have lost.
Best of luck, and please report what happened.
Imagine the driver in front saying, "He was following me so closely I was uncomfortable." Remember, drivers use mirrors to see behind them, and on the mirrors there is often a warning that cars may be closer than they appear. This disclaimer is necessary because the mirrors are curved, and the curve distorts the image, either magnifying or reducing it.
There are several things that are important when defending yourself in court.
1. Respect the magistrate or justice of the peace who is presiding. Address that person as "Your Worship" (or whatever term of respect you hear police or other staff use). When the magistrate says you can question a witness who has just testified against you, make sure you face the witness and ask questions. For example, "Can you tell us how many car lengths behind you I was?" and not "Well I made sure to leave a proper distance ..." because your story will be interrupted because you are allowed ONLY to ask questions.
2. Dress neatly and stand when called and speak in a distinct voice.
Try to act professionally.
3. Remember that this proceeding, while new to you, is dull as dishwater to most of the people in the room, and try not to waste their time. If you show up early, you can watch other people and learn a lot of things not to do.
4. If you lose this case, which you should not do from what I have read, try to see what went wrong, and how you can prevent a repetition. I have defended myself against quite a lot of charges in Toronto, and I lost some I should have won, but by and by I learned to win several I should have lost.
Best of luck, and please report what happened.
|
|
|
|
|