Accident pics/contesting ticket

[Charlie Smith]

A couple people have questioned the adequacy of the sign, and where
is was placed.  I sure can't tell from the pictures.  Some of that
probably depends on what's normally used in that part of the country.
I've seen roads closed due to unmelted snow clear into May in more
mountainous states like Utah.  My earlier comments were based on the
belief (guess?) that the sign was what's normally used in that locale,
and the belief (guess?) that entire-winter road closures are normal in that
area.  If that's the case, arguments about adequacy probably won't fly.

The point of the cop giving someone a ticket for "this ordeal" is that
it's the cop's job to do that if the cop believes a law / ordinance was
violated.  How big an ordeal the recipient went through doesn't enter
into it, as far as the cop's area of responsibility.  It's up to a court
to determine if the ordinance was violated, and if more (or any) punishment
is warranted.  That's why they are called a judge.

My comments about worse things to be cited for than driving on a closed
road and possible penalties were just pointing out possibilities.  If
someone goes in front of a judge and exhibits a high idiot factor, and
if the judge doesn't believe the defendant's likely to be deterred from
doing it (whatever) again, some judges are inclined to "improve" the
deterrence factors.  Especially if the defendant admits to violations
of other ordinances at the same time.  Never say something like "I was
going too fast to see the sign" ...

As far as penalties, check your local ordinances on things like reckless
operation, and drag racing.  Those ordinances may well include large fines,
a large number of points, and possible jail time.  That doesn't mean at all
that those penalties would be imposed in total every time someone was found
guilty of the offense.  It does indicate that whichever governmental body
passed the ordinance thought it was a serious offense.  It's up to the
judge to determine how much of the penalty to impose.

Again, if someone goes in front of a judge and exhibits a high idiot factor,
it's entirely up to the judge.  For example, and I'm sure this isn't the
case here - consider someone that was using an empty mountain road
for 9/10ths driving practice (and I've done it too), came around a
blind corner and while braking madly to avoid something like an ice
covered area flew past the normally used "road closed" sign, and
ended up off the road.  If the person then gets in front of a judge
and implies the cop is an idiot for writing the ticket, the judge is
more likely to think stronger deterrence is needed.

If he really thinks he was not in the wrong, and shouldn't have received
the ticket, a local attorney is probably an excellent idea.

    - Charlie



Earlier, Jack Gagnon wrote:
>
> Wow Charlie, your take on this is pretty harsh!  Jail time?  Are you trying
> to scare the bejesus out of him?
>
> What is the point in giving someone a ticket for this ordeal?  If you ask
> me, the cop is an idiot for drawing attention to the inadequate sign.  If
> the sign is deemed inadequate in court, the government agency could possibly
> be sued by the driver of the car!
>
> The signs do not meet MUTCD (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices )
> standards.  If the sign was only 100 feet from the closed section of road
> and the lettering is inadequate it is quite possible that the driver did not
> have adequate time to slow down before hitting the ice.  It does not take a
> whole lot of speed to roll a car after it has gone over an embankment
> sideways.
>
> There must be more to this story!
>
> Jack
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: quattro-admin at audifans.com [mailto:quattro-admin at audifans.com]On
> Behalf Of Charlie Smith
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 5:45 PM
> To: nicksimc at plu.edu
> Subject: Re: Accident pics/contesting ticket
>
> Earlier, nicksimc at plu.edu wrote:
> >
> > I finally got around to scanning some pictures of my April 2 accident.
> > The ticket I received the next day was for "going down a closed road."
> > This will be disputed in court at the end of July.  How's that for a right
> > to speedy trial?
> >
> > Here is the fork in the road.  The road to the left was obviously closed
> > by the snow berm in front of it, and by the sign 100 ft _behind_ the
> > berm telling you it is closed (far left sign).
> >
> > http://www.plu.edu/~nicksimc/road1.jpg
> >
> > I went down the road to the right.  This pic is of the sign telling you
> > that the road ahead was closed.  It is about 100ft in front of the ice.
> >
> > http://www.plu.edu/~nicksimc/road2.jpg
> >
> > I never actually saw the sign because I was too busy braking to avoid the
> > obvious hazard.  Unfortunately, I was unable to come to a complete stop
> > before I reached the ice, and I began sliding across this:
>
> I think you are guilty as charged.  If you went past a "road closed"
> sign (road2.jpg) that's the end of the story.  The fact that you were
> going too fast to see it is no excuse.  If you told the officer that
> you "never actually saw the sign because I was too busy braking to
> avoid the obvious hazard", you are lucky he didn't also cite you for
> either "too fast for conditions" or "reckless operation".
>
> > I am looking for a nice way to say "this is BS" in court.  Anyone?
>
> I think you'd better pay the ticket and stay out of court if you can.
>
> I'm a volunteer police officer in Columbus Ohio.  I've seen judges around
> here that on hearing a story like yours would add the "reckless operation"
> charge themselves and sock you with a healthy fine.  Look up the penalty
> for reckless ops in your city / state.  It may even specify jail time.
>
>     - Charlie