Several months ago, I continued through a 4-way stop sign (there were no other vehicles at, or approaching, the intersection) to avoid a rear-end collision. I did NOT receive an offence notice, so the following question is hypothetical: If an officer had witnessed my vehicle disobeying the stop sign and then issued an offence notice, would the explanation that the offence was committed to avoid a collision be a valid "defence of necessity"? I assume it would.

More details on the scenario: As mentioned in the opening sentence, there were no other vehicles at, or approaching, the 4-way stop. The roads were wet and the speed limit was 80 km/hr. While slowing down during the approach to the intersection, I could hear the vehicle behind me starting to "skid" (due to a 4-wheel lock up condition; obviously a car without ABS). A quick glance in the rear-view mirror revealed that the vehicle was starting to "go sideways", i.e. the rear end was sliding out towards the unpaved shoulder. Thus I decided to continue through the 4-way stop to avoid being rear-ended. I am fairly certain that a collision would have occurred if I would have stopped at the intersection, but can't be absolutely certain since I didn't continue looking back to determine exactly where the vehicle managed to stop relative to stop line.

I have a feeling the officer would be more interested in helping and then ticketing the guy who spun out than you.

ynotp wrote:

I have a feeling the officer would be more interested in helping and then ticketing the guy who spun out than you.

Agreed, but I should have been clearer in the original post. The other car did not spin out; the car swung out perhaps 20 degrees from the centre line and relatively quickly brought the car under control. However, I am fairly certain that a (minor) collision would have occurred if I would have stopped at the intersection. So, there is a possibility that any officer near the scene would have only observed my vehicle passing through the intersection without stopping; especially if the approach to the intersection was lined with trees (as is common in rural areas) thus obscuring the entire sequence of events.

As mentioned in the original post, I assume the above explanation for committing the "disobey sign" offence would be a valid "defence of necessity", so I guess it comes down to credibility when discussing the situation with a prosecutor (or in the courtroom if it goes to trial).