OHTA.ca

This just happened to me today,

having a leisurely afternoon drive with the family (wife, 5 & 3 year old sons) to the library. coming up the intersection I went into the right hand turn lane began slowing down as the vehicle in front of me slowed down. All of a sudden he stopped, I said (Oh, s&*t, wife heard it) and slammed my brakes and we collided. His car then rolled a good 5 feet and hit a pickup in front of his. I went over to make sure his was ok (first aid training and I'm a security guard) He was listening to some device with ear plugs, he took them out and said yeah. I called the police, they show up while I was talking to my insurance. The officer went over talked to the driver of the car I hit came back and told me that I'm getting a ticket for Carless driving. I tried to explain that I wasn't carless but it didn't matter. I refused to do a statement until I spoke to someone about the ticket. I asked the officer what about the driver with the ear buds in... he didn't seem to care.

My question is what is the possibility of having this dropped. The Crown will have a hard time proving I was careless, considering I was driving with precious cargo, I was more cautious then normally. Only witness are the driver I hit (he was distracted with his electronic device and didn't see me coming or he could have pulled up (remember he rolled 5 feet to strike the truck in front of him) And the truck that was oblivious because he was looking for a break in traffic so he could turn.

Just to add I've hired Pointts for this. They are going for dismissal if not then a lesser charge of either following to close or something along that line. I'm a full G driver and have been driving for 17 years with a 6 star rating with my insurance. how does 1 at fault effect it and what would a lesser ticket do?

pirish wrote:My question is what is the possibility of having this dropped. The Crown will have a hard time proving I was careless, considering I was driving with precious cargo, I was more cautious then normally.

Pretty easy to prove, you crashed into the car in front of you. Had you been driving "carefully" you would have had adequate distance in front of you to stop in time.

pirish wrote:Just to add I've hired Pointts for this. They are going for dismissal if not then a lesser charge of either following to close or something along that line. I'm a full G driver and have been driving for 17 years with a 6 star rating with my insurance. how does 1 at fault effect it and what would a lesser ticket do

Impossible to say how this will impact your insurance rates, other than the obvious "increase". Do you have accident forgiveness? Does your insurance company consider careless driving a minor or major conviction? Personally I would suggest calling another insurance company for a quote with the at fault and HTA charge for a clearer idea of what sort of hike you can expect.

We were all slowing down to turn right... should have mentioned that right hand turn lane crossed an unregulated railway crossing and that's where he stopped abruptly and why he had 5 feet of travel before striking the truck in front of him.

Called my insurance and even though I have no convictions they will cancel my policy.

what about R. v. Morgan, 2008? he actually looked away from traffic but was aquited. I was looking directly at the car infront of me and applying the brake to stop when he slammed his. I fail to see how that is carelessness. Either way I feel I did the right thing by hiring legal counsel. He feels very confident that the crown will not be able to prove strict liability. Even Mens rea would be a good defence as I had my children in the car and I wasn't charged with endangerment.

The closer you are to the car in front, the less time you have to stop.(old rule was 1 car length per 16 KPH).

IMHO you were careless.

I hate drivers like you that tailgate.

That said you will most likely be offered a lower charge at ER or trial.

Cheers

Viper1

what part of we were all stopping to turn right ... ie I was one car length when he stopped and so I reacted . speed at time of impact was under 5km. I offered to take a lesser charge of following but the officer said it didn't warrant it as the skids showed I wasn't following too close.. so thanks for coming out... Either offer some insight or take your judgemental tush elsewhere...

I can easily say I hate over cautious drivers specially when they stop in a roundabout because they are unsure of the driver waiting to come in... or that drivers over 60 should go for regular vision/road tests. Either way fact is the driver of the other vehicle was listing and playing with some electronic device that I witnessed him removed the earphones when I checked to see if he was alright. Officer felt the evidence didn't support following too close.. So from what I've been reading here it seems that the "Careless" Charge is being tossed around like confetti at a party tying up the court systems for what to try to get higher convictions for lesser charges?

I'll Post the outcome of my trial. Going to love to see the other driver come in as a witness when he didn't even see anything but his Iphone/ipod screen. Oh wait I'm not going to be there so the crown can't prove the "who".

You rear ended another vehicle, as much as you want it to be his fault it is your responsibility to leave sufficient room to react. It appears clear you failed to do this. Had you left more room you would have been able to stop in time and there would have been no accident.

It's not fair, but that's the way it is. The good news is that no one was injured (or were they?). You may want to make a conscious effort to leave yourself more room while driving, particularly with precious cargo on board and take this as the lesson it is.

Maybe Points can get you your dismissal, but I would be willing to bet if they do it is due to a procedural error rather than your "defence" that the driver ahead of you was fiddling with his Ipod or stopped too rapidly. Why would you even think the crown would have difficulty proving the who?

I was in a similar accident years ago, and up until that point felt that my driving was entirely safe - and for day to day travel my driving habits were fine, until the vehicle ahead of me stopped suddenly to avoid an animal and I had insufficient room to stop. Was I pissed at the driver ahead of me for putting me into that situation over a squirrel? Sure, but if I'd have left just one more car length between us there would have been no collision.

Good luck, let us know how it turns out.

I'm not trying to place blame on him... Your correct, I rear ended him ergo my fault.. I'm pissed at the officer for the ticket he issued. In no way was I careless. According to the HTA I could have been ticketed for something else. But instead he choose the most severe one for whatever reason and didn't feel like investigating. He was on scene for 5 min, spoke to one person then made his decision. Point I guess is that the Careless driving charged should be reserved for just that Careless driving. It's not just my insurance I'm worried about here, I can loose my Career, I'm a security guard.

It's a bogus "catch all" ticket. If I were drunk and walking a bike I wouldn't be charged with Care and control, I would be ticketed for drunk in public. Now if I got on the bike that would be a DUI.

I would also like to add.. My defence is "failing to prove Careless" ie what would any other average driver do in that situation & driving without due diligence. I slammed my brakes.. isn't that what you would have done? I was aware of the cars braking in front of me and was applying the brakes to slow downs (showing due diligence). Forget tailgating but focus on that time. I suggested a ticket for following too close but the officer said my skids proved otherwise.

I'm looking for the law side on this subject not personal opinions. Spoke with my insurance company and they said a lesser ticket would be fine. However my policy is up for renewal in February and they cautioned me that when they do their "check" in January that if I have the Careless on my record they will cancel. I asked them what if it's still in courts they said it didn't matter. Can anyone inform me if this will be on my record while it's being disputed?

You won't lose your job over this. The Solgens office has a list of specific convictions that would prevent licencing/relicencing of Security Guards and the list (last I saw) was limited to Criminal Code and CDSA convictions, you may not be eligible to drive for your employer as their insurance company won't like the ticket, but you'd still be working.

This does not go on your record UNTIL the matter is resolved (conviction/dismissal/whatever). As long as it is before the courts it will not show up on your abstract, and so the insurance company won't be able to see it.

That's not due dilligence you're describing by the way - had you been honking your horn, running with your hazards on and screaming out the window it isn't due dilligence. You are operating a motor vehicle, you are EXPECTED, even REQUIRED to be paying attention, the fact that you struck the vehicle says it all. That's not only my opinion, it's a fact.

The obvious counter to your "defence" is "a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have left adequate room to stop".

R. v. Morgan, 2008

Again that would prove following too close not careless.

Good to know about the abstact, thanks

pirish wrote:R. v. Morgan, 2008

Again that would prove following too close not careless.

Good to know about the abstact, thanks

Well, then you're all set. Let us know how it plays out.

Out of curiosity, how much damage was done to (a) your vehicle (b) the vehicle you directly struck (c) the truck 5 feet in front of that? Also, your brakes were in good working order?

I don't hate you (though I do dislike tailgating a lot)... but I am struggling with your arguments. The driver of vehicle b had ear buds. That's not very smart but doesn't make him culpable. He was hit with enough force to launch him at least 5 feet forward while he probably had is brakes on. I don't believe he's required to pull forward 5 feet, though that might have helped. The "I was driving more cautiously than usual" argument could be a two edged sword. A particularly vexatious JP or prosecutor might ask how incautiously you might drive without young children aboard.

pirish wrote:So from what I've been reading here it seems that the "Careless" Charge is being tossed around like confetti at a party tying up the court systems for what to try to get higher convictions for lesser charges?

FYI, the following article covers the topic of the careless driving charge being applied indiscriminately:

hecubus wrote:

pirish wrote:So from what I've been reading here it seems that the "Careless" Charge is being tossed around like confetti at a party tying up the court systems for what to try to get higher convictions for lesser charges?

FYI, the following article covers the topic of the careless driving charge being applied indiscriminately:

http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story ... y-to-drive

That article pretty much sums it up.

In my layman opinion, the problem with "careless driving" as defined in the HTA is that it is far too generic and the penalty that accompanies it is far too stiff. Any time a motorist commits an offense it could be argued that they were "driving without due care and attention." Back in the day when careless driving was meant to deal with people who drove recklessly and with complete disregard to public safety, a penalty of six demerit points, possible jail time and a loss of insurance coverage didn't seem out of place. But it's way too harsh for everyday fender-benders and stuff like that. IMO, this section of the HTA is due for change.

While I somewhat admire your ambition, Careless Driving is not something to screw around with.

I'd say there's a good chance they may offer you some kind of plea deal that would nix Careless Driving for something else (eg. Following Too Closely). Personally, if I were in your shoes i'd take it and run. You're still going to be convicted, but you'll be able to continue functioning on your normal insurance provider.

You're running the risk of getting booted by your insurance company and having to bend over for high risk insurance. I've seen some friends who've had to go down this route and the rates were UNBELIEVABLE. "Buy this car to drive to work, Drive to work to pay for this car" is what you're going to be doing on facility insurance.

Since you've hired Pointts, they aren't going to go into some kind of battle over this ticket anyways. When they say they'll try for dismissal, it means they are going to do what everyone else already does here on their own (eg. receive disclosure, have a trial within a reasonable amount of time). When they get nowhere with that, they'll try to get you a reduced fine. I'd highly consider it if I were you. I say this in the nicest way, but don't be a hero.