“Careless Driving Wtf I Couldn't Have Been Any More Careful!”

Ok so got an update here... just received pre-trial offer for my carless driving.. they offered

"Fail To Turn Out to Avoid Collision" contrary to section 148(5) of The Highway Traffic Act. This charge carries 2 demerit points and a fine of $110.00.

At this point I requested a copy of the crown disclosure from my paralegal. upon reading it I found a lot of issues...and I'm wondering if it would be worth it to risk trial based on what I have.

I didn't give a statement at time of accident nor did my wife.

1. officers notes have no mention that I slammed my brakes... in fact it implies that I drove straight in to the car in front of me. Summary says "Failed to Stop". I have photo's of the accident and points of impact as well as measurements. Point of impact on other car was 1.5 feet from street level (Hyundai accent) my car's damage was focused at the hood latch 2 feet from ground. This indicates that my car's front end was dipped down from stopping.

According to strict liability from what I understand, This proves that I wasn't driving carelessly, I was doing what any other normal person would have done.. apply brakes.

2. when I hit car in front it hit another in front of him. (V3) Driver of V3 says a Honda hit him in his statement (was a Hyundai doesn't even know what car hit him)

Are these sufficient to use as a defence? or should I just bend over and take the 2 demrits along with the %15 surcharge on my insurance?

pirish wrote:1. officers notes have no mention that I slammed my brakes... in fact it implies that I drove straight in to the car in front of me. Summary says "Failed to Stop". I have photo's of the accident and points of impact as well as measurements. Point of impact on other car was 1.5 feet from street level (Hyundai accent) my car's damage was focused at the hood latch 2 feet from ground. This indicates that my car's front end was dipped down from stopping.

According to strict liability from what I understand, This proves that I wasn't driving carelessly, I was doing what any other normal person would have done.. apply brakes.

I'd disagree that simply braking prior to impact shows due care. Why couldn't you stop in time? Where you distracted? Were you not following from a safe distance? A rear end collision may not be sufficient in itself to show careless driving, but neither is simply braking to show due care.

pirish wrote:2. when I hit car in front it hit another in front of him. (V3) Driver of V3 says a Honda hit him in his statement (was a Hyundai doesn't even know what car hit him)

I would consider that a very minor discrepancy. Some people aren't car people and have a hard time telling apart makes and models. Most people don't recall the other driver's name, licence plate, etc. That's why police attend and take a report to record those details. If he confirmed with the reporting officer that it was you operating the motor vehicle that struck him, it should be sufficient.

pirish wrote:Are these sufficient to use as a defence? or should I just bend over and take the 2 demrits along with the %15 surcharge on my insurance?

I personally don't think either of the points you raised are very helpful to your defence. That being said, the Crown still has to prove the case against you. You have a paid professional who's familiar with the Court you'll be attending and has an overview of all of the evidence. What do they recommend?

Stanton wrote:

pirish wrote:1. officers notes have no mention that I slammed my brakes... in fact it implies that I drove straight in to the car in front of me. Summary says "Failed to Stop". I have photo's of the accident and points of impact as well as measurements. Point of impact on other car was 1.5 feet from street level (Hyundai accent) my car's damage was focused at the hood latch 2 feet from ground. This indicates that my car's front end was dipped down from stopping.

According to strict liability from what I understand, This proves that I wasn't driving carelessly, I was doing what any other normal person would have done.. apply brakes.

Stanton wrote:I'd disagree that simply braking prior to impact shows due care. Why couldn't you stop in time? Where you distracted? Were you not following from a safe distance? A rear end collision may not be sufficient in itself to show careless driving, but neither is simply braking to show due care.

Your missing the point.. .the officer failed to include my full statement to him " I said *EDIT* and slammed the brakes." or that my wife said this to him also in his report. But he did report that I said He didn't have break lights on.

pirish wrote:2. when I hit car in front it hit another in front of him. (V3) Driver of V3 says a Honda hit him in his statement (was a Hyundai doesn't even know what car hit him)

I would consider that a very minor discrepancy. Some people aren't car people and have a hard time telling apart makes and models. Most people don't recall the other driver's name, licence plate, etc. That's why police attend and take a report to record those details. If he confirmed with the reporting officer that it was you operating the motor vehicle that struck him, it should be sufficient.

Well in his written statement he was sure able to provide my licence plate and the other vehicle's plate...

pirish wrote:Are these sufficient to use as a defence? or should I just bend over and take the 2 demrits along with the %15 surcharge on my insurance?

I personally don't think either of the points you raised are very helpful to your defence. That being said, the Crown still has to prove the case against you. You have a paid professional who's familiar with the Court you'll be attending and has an overview of all of the evidence. What do they recommend?

They haven't recommended anything... in fact they are wanting me to make the decision... hence why I'm trying to see if it's worth it..

Can someone answer me on this... I can't seem to find if Fail To Turn Out to Avoid Collision" contrary to section 148(5) of The Highway Traffic Act is a minor, Major, or Serious ticket. it's a 2 point ticket.