Ping: Tim
saddlebag
I have never gone to court and don't have to now. I could easily pay
off this assured clear distance ticket and be done with it, but I'm
thinking of fighting it and here's why:
a) The law pertaining to "Assured Clear Distance Ahead" reads as
follows:
"No person shall operate a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or
streetcar at a speed greater or less than is reasonable or proper,
having due regard to the traffic, surface, and width of the street or
highway and any other conditions, and no person shall drive any motor
vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar in and upon any street or
highway at a greater speed than will permit the person to bring it to
a stop within the assured clear distance ahead."
b) As I explained in my post, I veered out of the inline path of the
bus then applied the brakes on sand. We hit the ground and I bounced
right up and on my feet. The inertia of the 700+lb motorcycle sliding
on it's painted metal surfaces allowed it to proceed forward 15 ft or
so under the stopped bus ahead. Abrasions to my clothing are almost
completely non existent (even a the thin Docker pants I was wearing
had no abrasion), indicating a very low rate of speed was involved.
Now the question is did I have sufficient pavement ahead to bring my
motorcycle to a stop without hitting the bus ahead of me. The answer
in my mind is unquestionably yes.
The facts as reviewed by an unexperienced motorcyclist may be no, or
why would I bother veering out of the way?
For those of us with experience on motorcycles, the obvious answer is
to keep the guy text messaging is adoring girlfriend behind us from
making like Aunt Jamima and flattening us like a pancake.
For myself, this reaction is as ingrained in my being as pulling my
hand out from under hot water.
Now I've taken a street riding course on base and a couple of track
riding courses, but I was an experienced rider and had read all the
safe riding tips long before MSF came into being and thus never
bothered to take it. But it is recognized as the de facto safety
standard and you are a former instructor if memory serves.
So my questions to you are:
1) Does MSF teach moving yourself out of the path of traffic as an
accident avoidance technique?
2) Do you know of any literature that discusses this as a standard
safety practice?
Since Ohio uses MSF as a secondary method of attaining a license, I
would think that citing them as an example of proper safe riding
technique couldn't hurt my case if i choose to pursue it.
TIA
Tim
Yeppers.
> 2) Do you know of any literature that discusses this as a standard
> safety practice?
I believe that you will find ample literature (almost all) dealing
with mental riding strategies speak to the need to change your speed
and/or your path of travel to avoid an object in your path. It's a
basic tenet of motorcycle safety.
> Since Ohio uses MSF as a secondary method of attaining a license, I
> would think that citing them as an example of proper safe riding
> technique couldn't hurt my case if i choose to pursue it.
I agree; and think you should get hold of the class booklets for both
the basic rider course and the experienced rider course. Don't know
if you'd win the case, but the supporting material would never, imho,
hurt.
Rob Striemer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Shapiro_(attorney)
MikeWhy
> So I'm curious.
>
> I have never gone to court and don't have to now. I could easily pay
> off this assured clear distance ticket and be done with it, but I'm
> thinking of fighting it and here's why:
>
> a) The law pertaining to "Assured Clear Distance Ahead" reads as
> follows:
>
> "No person shall operate a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or
> streetcar at a speed greater or less than is reasonable or proper,
> having due regard to the traffic, surface, and width of the street or
> highway and any other conditions, and no person shall drive any motor
> vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar in and upon any street or
> highway at a greater speed than will permit the person to bring it to
> a stop within the assured clear distance ahead."
>
> b) As I explained in my post, I veered out of the inline path of the
> bus then applied the brakes on sand. We hit the ground and I bounced
> right up and on my feet. The inertia of the 700+lb motorcycle sliding
> on it's painted metal surfaces allowed it to proceed forward 15 ft or
> so under the stopped bus ahead. Abrasions to my clothing are almost
> completely non existent (even a the thin Docker pants I was wearing
> had no abrasion), indicating a very low rate of speed was involved.
>
> Now the question is did I have sufficient pavement ahead to bring my
> motorcycle to a stop without hitting the bus ahead of me. The answer
> in my mind is unquestionably yes.
That's asking the wrong question. The complainant has to prove that you did
not. You say you had stopped 15' short of the schoolbus, and it was the
unpiloted motorcycle that continued on until making contact.
>
> The facts as reviewed by an unexperienced motorcyclist may be no, or
> why would I bother veering out of the way?
>
> For those of us with experience on motorcycles, the obvious answer is
> to keep the guy text messaging is adoring girlfriend behind us from
> making like Aunt Jamima and flattening us like a pancake.
>
> For myself, this reaction is as ingrained in my being as pulling my
> hand out from under hot water.
>
> Now I've taken a street riding course on base and a couple of track
> riding courses, but I was an experienced rider and had read all the
> safe riding tips long before MSF came into being and thus never
> bothered to take it. But it is recognized as the de facto safety
> standard and you are a former instructor if memory serves.
>
> So my questions to you are:
>
> 1) Does MSF teach moving yourself out of the path of traffic as an
> accident avoidance technique?
Swerve and brake is part of the IL road skills test. They waive the skills
and written test for a MSF passing grade.
>
> 2) Do you know of any literature that discusses this as a standard
> safety practice?
>
> Since Ohio uses MSF as a secondary method of attaining a license, I
> would think that citing them as an example of proper safe riding
> technique couldn't hurt my case if i choose to pursue it.
>
> TIA
It remains to be seen whether swerving onto sand for a braking surface was
wise. It believe it to be unwise, but that's a question apart from the
matter of the law.
saddlebag
The problem was that it wasn't immediately obvious. Had I jumped off
road I'd like to think that I'd have had the presence of mind to use
the rear brake, but as the shoulder was paved and grey, using the
front was my instinctive reaction.
As to the wiseness, I'd do the same thing if it happened again today.
Better to low side and skid a ways then to have a Buick roll over you
and mangle your face for the viewing.
But anyway, thanks for the "pilotless" thought.
saddlebag
I found the handbook, but I'm a little disappointed in the
description:
"Sometimes you may not have enough
room to stop, even if you use both
brakes properly. An object might appear
suddenly in your path, or the car ahead
might squeal to a stop. The only way to
avoid a crash may be to turn quickly or
swerve around it."
By that description the rider was violating Assured Clear Distance
Ahead, the charge I'm trying to beat. I was hoping for a more general
statement that implied that it was good practice to get your ass out
of the way of the oaf behind you.
Oh well, guess I'll have to go it alone...
saddlebag
> Jim "The Hammer" Shapiro
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Shapiro_(attorney)
Thanks, but my license isn't in jeopardy or anything. I just want to
see if the court takes the somewhat unique circumstances of riding a
motorcycle into account as the lawyer who wrote the law obviously gave
it no thought.
In these days of debtor gov't, I'm not really holding out a lot of
hope that I'll walk away without paying some dues, but at least I'll
feel like I'll be paying for the cops and emergency personal who
showed up instead of a stinkin ambulance chaser.
Tim
You don't have to be violating "assured clear distance" to fnd an
object in your path that is too close to allow you to have room to
stop safely even if you use your brakes properly. An object can move
INTO your path, or there may be an object (think road surface, manhole
cover, frost heave, gravel, sand, black ice, oil, antifreeze) that you
are unable to SEE until you are close enough to it, even if you are
actively and (otherwise effectively) SCANNING for hazards.
MikeWhy
Forget the "pilotless" part. That wasn't the main point. Without twisting
words or facts, you had in fact stopped short of the bus. You wrote you were
15' away watching the bike continue to slide. Properly functioning brakes on
sound pavement will stop a bike in shorter distance than a tumbling or
sliding motorcyclist can stop. Everyone but the departed Sheriff knows this.
If you had managed to stay on the bike, there was clearly assured clear
distance ahead. The burden of proof is still on the complainant to
demonstrate otherwise. Also, there is no law as far as I know that makes it
a crime to be ejected from the vehicle due to mishap.
I was only half kidding about your performance. Your swerving from clean
pavement onto the sand caused you to knock down. You needed to review and
debrief whether that was a good sound choice. You say it was, that you would
do it the same way next time, and there was a Buick involved that we don't
know about. Good enough for me. I'm not even curious about it. It just
wasn't clear in your first telling of it.
Your entire problem is in how you tell it to the court. Circumstances
required you to swerve. (What circumstances? Fear of the Buick following too
close behind you?) The swerve carried you onto the sanded pavement. The bike
fell down and continued to slide, but you had stopped 15' feet away from
contacting the bus. Clearly, there was room for the bike to have stopped
safely if not for the compromised road surface. This should satisfy the
requirement for assured clear distance ahead.
saddlebag
I used the "Buick" as a prop. The point I was making is that I
wouldn't take the chance. I certainly did not have time to make an
assessment of my rear views for company before I took action. I assume
a Buick with bad brakes and a distracted driver is always there in
such emergency braking situations and get the hell out of the way in
case I'm right. Sure I check the rearview regularly, but not every
second, and if reversed my policy, I'd only have to be wrong once...
Besides, it's all very instinctive to me at this point and I doubt I
could unlearn it at this point anyway.
But on to today. At the Megacorp, it was Healthday or some such thing
where people from all over the community were invited to display their
healthy wares for us. In addition to Nutritionists, Nurses, and Zumba
dancers, a cop was there handing out cheap gun locks.
Not being one for all the giddy people trying to tone me up and
lighten my wallet, I stayed out of the health mall, but still managed
to bump into the Sheriff at the urinal. Upon an almost synchronous
squirt and shake, we pulled up our drawers and I went into the story,
following which I asked him what he thought of my odds of beating it.
He asked where it happened. I told him the county and he said he
didn't know anyone there, but thought my best bet was to pay it and
forget it. He said they may drop it or not, but may also choose to
charge me with and equally crappy charge of "failure to control" my
vehicle.
Another fellow in the office had a similar situation last winter. He
lost control of his truck on an icy highway and struck another
vehicle. He went to court and talked with the DA and since no one was
injured and insurance covered the damage, the DA lowered it to a non
moving violation like "equipment failure" and while he still had to
pay the same penalty, it saved him 2 points on his license.
I currently don't have any and doubt that I would accrue enough over
the next two years to cause me any headaches, but I guess you never
know. I'd probably still roll the dice as I'd have nothing to lose if
I got found guilty and paid at the court rather just send in the
money, but the thought of them doubling the penalty for essentially
doing nothing more than falling down on their unkempt street might
have me go postal.
Suppose I should listen to the cop and just cut my losses...
don (Calgary)
<sadd...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Suppose I should listen to the cop and just cut my losses...
>
I'm not sure I recall the precise circumstances of the incident, but
if you had to swerve to avoid hitting the bus, regardless of the road
conditions, you did not leave a sufficient stopping distance. If I
read the definition of the charge correctly, that would be enough to
find you guilty.
If you had sufficient distance to stop but decided to swerve to avoid
being hit from behind, I'd think you'd have to prove there was a clear
and present risk.. Doing it on spec probably wouldn't fly.
Was it in this forum someone posted, how after they got fucked up
hitting a deer, they got charged with some kind of stupid traffic
infraction? It was a few years ago and I am not sure the incident was
posted here or not.
I doubt very much they would add to the charge just because you
decided to fight the ticket. I doubt the court would dismiss it, but
the prosecutor might just think it's not worth the bother and let you
off with a fine and no points.
If you have the time, go for it. What was it The Sheriff used to
advocate? Go to court and demand a jury trial. That's not an option
for traffic court in Alberta, but maybe it is in your corner of the
world. My sense is that would piss them off. Do they have the death
penalty in your state? <g>
Rob Striemer
"saddlebag" <sadd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0a03153e-9df6-4bb9...@e1g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
At my age, I would do just that. Pay whatever and forget about it. It's
isn't worth your time or mental energy to get mixed up in a possibly lengthy
legal crap shoot.
Rob
saddlebag
> "saddlebag" <saddle...@aol.com> wrote in message
Yeah, I wrote in to a lawyer who offered free advice and he phoned me
back today. He said that he works in the county all the time and had
the bike slid into anything else he could get me off. But seeing as
it was a school bus, the best he could do was wish me luck.
saddlebag
> On Mon, 10 May 2010 15:18:08 -0700 (PDT), saddlebag
>
>
> >Suppose I should listen to the cop and just cut my losses...
>
> I'm not sure I recall the precise circumstances of the incident, but
> if you had to swerve to avoid hitting the bus, regardless of the road
> conditions, you did not leave a sufficient stopping distance. If I
> read the definition of the charge correctly, that would be enough to
> find you guilty.
>
> If you had sufficient distance to stop but decided to swerve to avoid
> being hit from behind, I'd think you'd have to prove there was a clear
> and present risk.. Doing it on spec probably wouldn't fly.
>
> Was it in this forum someone posted, how after they got fucked up
> hitting a deer, they got charged with some kind of stupid traffic
> infraction? It was a few years ago and I am not sure the incident was
> posted here or not.
>
> I doubt very much they would add to the charge just because you
> decided to fight the ticket. I doubt the court would dismiss it, but
> the prosecutor might just think it's not worth the bother and let you
> off with a fine and no points.
>
> If you have the time, go for it. What was it The Sheriff used to
> advocate? Go to court and demand a jury trial.
No, he suggested just paying it and calling it a day. After today's
second opinion from a lawyer, the check is in the mail...
don (Calgary)
<sadd...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> If you have the time, go for it. What was it The Sheriff used to
>> advocate? Go to court and demand a jury trial.
>
>No, he suggested just paying it and calling it a day. After today's
>second opinion from a lawyer, the check is in the mail...
I find the longer tickets hang around unpaid, the more they piss me
off. As soon as I receive them, I pay them. After that it is out of
sight and out of mind.
Best therapy I know for traffic tickets.
MikeWhy
I know exactly what I've done to deserve each ticket I've ever gotten. Every
last one. Is that not the same for everyone here? Considering all the times
I didn't get stopped and written, the fines and other costs average out to a
not unreasonable special use tax, most years. It depends where you live and
ride, of course.
Robert Bolton
Back around 1976 or 77, I made a left turn, traveled about 3 cars
lengths, hit the brakes, slid on some ice, and rear ended a pickup.
The cop wrote me a ticket for violating the Basic Speed law, which is
driving faster than conditions warrant. I told him I'd just made that
left, so couldn't have been traveling very fast at all. He said they
always give a ticket to the party responsible for the accident, and
offered that he could write one up for negligent driving if I
preferred. I accepted the basic speed ticket.
I wonder if a judge could be nasty enough to do something like that to
you? Probably not.
Robert
BrianNZ
We get 28 days to pay, then a written warning giving another 28 days to
pay. Then, if you contact them, you get another 28 days to pay. Thats
when I pay, at the last minute.
Tickets are just part of the game, but I've been lucky for over a year
now. After years of having between 60 to 80 demerit points (depending on
when the 2 year old points drop off) there was always that nagging
thought of "Only 1 to go". Now I have 0 points, a novelty.
don (Calgary)
>don (Calgary) wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 14:15:19 -0700 (PDT), saddlebag
>> <sadd...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> If you have the time, go for it. What was it The Sheriff used to
>>>> advocate? Go to court and demand a jury trial.
>>> No, he suggested just paying it and calling it a day. After today's
>>> second opinion from a lawyer, the check is in the mail...
>>
>> I find the longer tickets hang around unpaid, the more they piss me
>> off. As soon as I receive them, I pay them. After that it is out of
>> sight and out of mind.
>>
>> Best therapy I know for traffic tickets.
>
>
>We get 28 days to pay, then a written warning giving another 28 days to
>pay. Then, if you contact them, you get another 28 days to pay. Thats
>when I pay, at the last minute.
>
heh, heh, heh, I am sure that really pisses them off.
saddlebag
> On Mon, 10 May 2010 03:01:08 -0700 (PDT), saddlebag
>
I think it would be the DA. He presses the charges, the judge just
decides if they're warranted. As they both get paid by the state that
collects the fees, there is little doubt that they overlook much...
BrianNZ
The habit started with the mistaken belief that the demerit points
started from when the ticket got paid. 3 months walking taught me it
wasn't so..... :)
Robert Bolton
I was being a little facetious, but since you mentioned the DA I
realize I have no idea how court works for minor traffic offenses.
Hmmm,
Robert
.
> No, he suggested just paying it and calling it a day. After today's
> second opinion from a lawyer, the check is in the mail...
What? Didn't you learn *anything* from Phil Scott's diehard resistance
to injustice?
You're supposed to make a *cause celebre* out of this case and sell T-
shirts and
underwear with your anti-pig logo...