Traffic Court
Following is a lengthy post about my experience in traffic court yesterday. Some of you may find it boring, so I didn't want to flood the entire main page with it. Short story: "Deferred finding." Long story...
View/Hide the expanded post.
Due to the bus schedule I arrived roughly 20 minutes early for my 10:00 court appointment. This gave me the opportunity to witness a few cases. I was in the King County District Court, room E-341, with Judge Mark Chow residing. Apparently everyone whose ticket involved a collision is sent to this court.
In the first case I was present for, a lady who was in the middle of a three-car rear end collision on I-5 was contesting a ticket for "following too closely." She rambled on for a long time, basically saying nothing more than "I think I only felt one impact" and more or less claiming that she was pushed into the car in front of her by the SUV that hit her and then fled the scene. She presented a—shall we say—less than compelling case, and yet the judge dismissed her ticket.
The next case was a lady that rear ended someone on I-405 in stop-and-go traffic and was ticketed for "speed too fast for conditions." The best she could come up with was "I didn't have time to stop," and when pressed on why she didn't have time, she said "I might have been distracted." Her citation was not dismissed, however she was offered a reduced fine or a deferred finding (more on those later).
Next up was a gentleman that was ticketed for failing to provide proof of insurance. He admitted to not having insurance, so the judge asked if he had been ticketed for no insurance before. He said that he had not. Then the judge pulled up his record and found out that—what do you know—he had; in '02 and '04. He was ordered to pay the full fine of $538. Ouch. This was the only case where the infraction was not dismissed or the defendant offered a reduced fine or deferral.
The 10:00 session didn't actually start until 10:25, at which point the judge called roll. Two of the individuals in the group were non-English speaking, and had interpreters. They both got to go first, simply because they had the interpreters. The first one was ticketed for "improper lane usage" and had hit the side of another vehicle. For some reason, he decided to subpoena as a witness the driver of the other vehicle. On the stand, this driver explained that they were at a full stop when suddenly the defendant's truck was implanted in the driver's side of their vehicle. The defendant brought photographs that for some reason didn't even show the scene of the collision, and tried to claim that the other driver somehow hit him. The judge didn't buy it, but because of his good record gave him the reduced or deferred option.
The next guy barely said anything. He basically just told the judge that two cars collided ahead of him and he couldn't avoid hitting them. The judge agreed, and dismissed the charge.
The last to go before me was a lady that brought a lawyer along, and to be honest the lawyer was talking so much legalese I'm not really sure what the charge was or what was going on at all, but whatever it was, it was dismissed.
Finally at about 11:00, it was my turn to go. The basic outline of my case was that the state is required to "prove by a preponderance of the evidence" that I committed the infraction of driving "at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions." Given that the state troopers arrived on the scene after the fact, and given that there are multiple plausible ways to lose control of a vehicle despite traveling at a safe speed (oil slick in the road, tire blowout, evasive maneuvers after being cut off, violent sneeze, etc.), the state can offer no such evidence (because I wasn't driving "too fast for conditions"). Therefore the infraction must be dismissed.
I attempted to give the judge a copy that I had prepared of the outline of my argument, but he refused to accept it, stating that it was "too long." I made my case, and he basically said that the fact that my car was wrecked was circumstantial evidence and was proof enough. Apparently Judge Chow could not possibly fathom that there are other ways to lose control of a vehicle. End of story.
The two options that were offered to me and others were: 1) Pay a reduced fine of $40, and the ticket goes on your driving record. 2) "Deferred finding," which basically amounts to a state-sanctioned bribe. If you pay a flat $100 fee and don't get any tickets for the next 12 months, they let you off. It's a codified version of Mexico's "slip the officer a few $20s and be on your way." Since I value having a clean driving record, I selected the bribe option.
Obviously I'm frustrated that the judge was unwilling to reason with me, but there are a couple of things that particularly bug me about the whole ordeal. It's not really the money that bothers me. Sure, it sucks to flush another hundred bucks after I already tossed $500 (the value of the wrecked car) and $150 (the towing fee), but to be honest $100 isn't all that much money to me anymore. What really bugs me is that Judge Mark Chow is basically calling me a liar. The fact that I was intimately familiar with the handling capabilities of my vehicle of nine years, and I knew for a fact that I was not traveling at a speed greater than was "reasonable and prudent under the conditions" didn't matter one iota. That is an unacceptable assault on my honor, and I really didn't appreciate it.
Furthermore, I realized something yesterday afternoon as I pondered my experience and the other cases that I witnessed. I realized that every one of them followed a simple pattern:
Before this pattern dawned on me I was really confused how a few of the people ahead of me were able to have their ticket dismissed when they offered weak or virtually no explanation for their actions. Once I realized the judge's method of operation though, it frustrated me even more. Why bother wasting time with the whole charade at all if the judge isn't really considering what you have to say? I could have worn my "blame the flying monkeys" t-shirt, and even used the "blame the flying monkeys" strategy, and the outcome would have been no different. It's not that I really had all that much faith in the justice system to begin with, but I guess now it's approaching zero.
All in all it was a very disappointing experience. Fate knocked me to the ground and the so-called "justice" system kicked me in the gut while I was down. At least nobody/nothing was hurt except my crappy car and my honor.
Hide the expanded post.
20 comments:
Tim,
Sounds to me like justice was done. I can't put myself in the place of the court, so I can oly go by the scant details you've presented, but you need to understand that when you get behind the wheel of a vehicle, you take responsibility for safe operation of that vehicle. Anything less is criminal, and that's why people get hurt or killed on the road. Sure, there may have been oil or antifreeze or a sheet of cardboard or a dead cat on the road that might have contributed to you losing control, but you needed to prove that to the court. As far as the court of public opinion, see my first sentence.
Very nearly 100% of accidents could be avoided, if drivers would simply take driving more seriously. I hope that what's happened to you will serve to ingrain this on you, and on the readers of your blog.
thecomputerguy,
1) I always take full responsibility for the safe operation of my vehicle. I drive the speed limits, always use my turn signals, maintain safe following distances, obey traffic signals, etc.
2) You said: Sure, there may have been oil or antifreeze or a sheet of cardboard or a dead cat on the road that might have contributed to you losing control, but you needed to prove that to the court. I disagree. The citation I was given stated clearly that "the state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you committed this infraction." (emphasis mine) Remember the concept of "innocent until proven guilty?" What happened to that? The state didn't prove anything, they assumed.
3) Again, I already do take driving completely seriously. Automobiles can easily become deadly when not handled with the appropriate respect. This fact has been ingrained in me since I began driving (you can thank my parents for that).
To sum up: I don't appreciate the dismissive attitude.
biliruben,
Thanks for the thoughtful remarks. I think I pretty much agree with your sentiment.
I'm surprised there was only 1 lawyer present. Spending a few hundred bucks getting a ticket dismissed is worth it to keep a clean driving record.
Lawyers usually fight the infractions by finding technicalities.
Tim,
I'm being dismissive because you're making it difficult for me to be any other way.
On that ramp, there is an advisory speed sign posted (if memory serves me 25mph?) that road engineers have deemed to be a safe speed to negotiate the corner. The safe speed is determined by a number of factors, including visibility, and the physics involved in the corner. Assuming that your car was in good repair, and that you didn't run over something very slippery, you should have been able to negotiate the corner and had a considerable safety margin of speed (meaning that you could have been going much faster than the posted advisory speed sign - even in incliment weather) without breaking traction.
Was it icy? That's the only thing I can think of that might even halfway get you off the hook. The problem is that even in ice, if you break traction, its your fault. Its considered "driving too fast for conditions". There are conditions that people simply shouldn't drive in. Nature is kinda funny that way.
Honestly, I wish you'd given more information, but at this point, I can only come to the conclusion that you were simply going too fast. Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of cars since then have negotiated that corner without crashing using nothing more than the advisory sign, and common sense - what could have possibly been the factor that caused YOU to crash if not speed?
Physics isn't random. If we know the coefficient of friction of the tires on that surface (which takes all conditions into account), and the radius of the curve, we could determine the maximum possible speed a car could go without losing control... and then run a million cars through that corner one mile per hour slower than that without crashing a single one. Sure, some of these factors will vary slightly, but those advisory signs err way on the side of caution (usually by a factor of about 2 in my experience).
Proof that you were going too fast (way too fast, if your crash was that bad) was that you crashed. If you weren't going too fast, then why did you crash?!?
Actually, the advisory sign says 30 MPH (the nearest speed limit sign is 40, but in this situation I think the advisory sign takes precedence if we're trying to determine what is legally "reasonable").
Yes, physics will tell us exactly how fast we must be going to lose traction. However, there are lots of variables that make it difficult (especially in this particular case) to arrive at a precise mathematical answer:
-The curve occurs at the crest of a hill. This geometry decreases traction because the car is accelerating downward at the point where maximum traction is required.
-The car may be decelerating when rounding the corner (due to the hill and due to how drivers typically approach this corner). This makes steering less stable and distributes weight more unevenly over the wheels.
-The road surface is not well-paved. There are numerous ruts and patches in the pavement that interact with the car's suspension. This reduces traction and magnifies the effects of any wobble or course correction by the driver.
-Depending on the time of day, the sun may be more or less directly in front of the driver approaching the top of the hill. This decreases the driver's concentration and ability to perceive road conditions.
Not that giving you more information is going to change anything, but here it is anyway.
Anon @ 2:51 correctly points out that the advisory speed is 30mph. Furthermore, I appreciate the anon's thoughtful analysis of all the factors that are involved in maintaining control on the onramp in question.
By my best guess traffic surrounding me was traveling 30-40mph (I was paying attention to the road, not my speedometer, so I can't know for certain). I was traveling more slowly than most of the surrounding vehicles. I myself have successfully negotiated that stretch of road in that very car countless times, under a wide variety of weather conditions. At the moment I lost traction I was merging from the left lane to the right lane (as directed by the signs). It had begun to very lightly sprinkle moments before I reached that point in the road, so there was likely a very small amount of dampness to the pavement.
Knowing my vehicle and that roadway as well as I do, more than anything I was shocked that such a thing happened. My honest to goodness best guess is that there was a patch of some kind of automotive fluid in between the lanes of the road that caused my vehicle to lose traction.
The first trooper to respond to the scene asked me how fast I was going. When I responded that I didn't know for sure, but I guessed around 30mph, he said something to the effect of "do you think this would have happened if you were going 20mph?" That's just ridiculous. A few hundred feet down the road you must merge onto the left lane of traffic that is flowing at (or quite likely above) 60mph. To take the ramp at 15-20mph would itself be hazardous.
It seems to me that much of the law enforcement and traffic judicial community has ingrained the belief that "all traffic accidents are caused by speed." While many certainly are, sometimes crap just happens.
This is anon@2:51 again.
Interesting that it was just starting to drizzle. The most dangerous, most deceptive rain driving conditions occur when it is just starting to rain after not raining for a long time. (In Seattle, I know, it rains so often that maybe this is moot.. but we get a few breaks now and then.)
Oil and other non-soluble liquids accumulate into a sort of oily paste in less-traveled locations and crevices on the road when it is not raining. When it starts raining, these liquids get flushed out onto the primary traction surfaces, but this only lasts a few minutes before the oil washes off the road or in a puddle, where it is again harmless to drivers.
If you've fallen victim to this, Tim, and it sounds like you may have, then you weren't driving cautiously enough for conditions. I would guess that speed alone didn't cause you to lose traction - the lane change was probably a big factor. But you can conclude that either a) you should have changed lanes after completing the turn, or b) you should have driven more slowly when completing the lane change.
Personally, I've had widely varied experiences with this ramp. Sometimes I feel comfortable at 50 MPH, and sometimes I feel like I'm on the edge at 30 MPH. For me, it seems to vary most depending on how I approach the corner - where I am within my lane, which lane I'm in, whether there's a car beside me and how close it is, etc. These things seem to affect how the corner feels much more than the physical conditions on the road, but that's just me. However, I have noticed that not hitting the brake in the middle of the turn makes a huge difference!
Anon, you make a good point. Many people may not be aware of the "first rain" danger. I am aware of it though, however I highly doubt that was the cause. For one thing, the danger usually comes to my mind when it first starts to rain, and I adjust my driving accordingly. Also, there had not been a significant span of time since the last rain. 24 out of 31 days in March had rain, including the four days before my collision (source). If I recall correctly, it had rained that morning, then the sun came out for 2-3 hours, then as I said, it was just starting to very lightly sprinkle—not even enough to turn on the wipers.
I have noticed what you mention about the way you approach the curve, though I guess I never really thought about it until now. My usual method is to stay in the left lane until after passing the I-5N exit, then merge right before the curve. For some reason I was delayed in my merge, and ended up merging just after the midway point of the curve this time. Clearly that was my fatal error.
If I had had any clue that a State Trooper would show up and write me a ticket, I would have gotten witness contact info and thoroughly photographed the scene in order to prove my innocence. Oh well, I guess we live and learn.
Look, I'm not trying to say that I'm some kind of perfect robot driver. I guess I'm trying to make 2 points.
1) I'm well aware of the various hazards of driving, and I'm a pretty careful driver.
And more importantly in my mind:
2) The state did not meet its requirement to "prove by a preponderance of the evidence" that I committed the infraction. "You crashed" is not proof of why I crashed. It's a fact that I crashed, but the state's requirement was to prove that it was due to my speed being "too fast for conditions." They did not do that.
(This is anon@2:51)
Tim,
I can certainly sympathize. You got into trouble because of a brief and sudden lack of clairvoyance. Can we say this was avoidable? Sure, if one is paying 100% attention. It's a combination of several events that normally don't happen, each of which individually would not cause a crash. Does that mean you were negligent as a driver? Not necessarily.
I'm no lawyer, but I'd guess that you'd have a better chance arguing your case by sticking to the facts - exactly what happened in what order. That *may* make it easier to discredit the knee-jerk "just going too fast" reaction that a judge (understandably) might have.
The burden is only "preponderance of the evidence," which means you have to outweigh the statistical evidence as to what commonly causes these crashes. I don't really think the sole fact that you wiped out on the corner is enough to convict.. but your actual speed isn't a rebuttal of that evidence. Hypothesizing that the lane change was a necessary contributing factor, on the other hand, makes your speed much less important.
Dude, I love your blog, but stop being a bitch. I have been in Judge Chow's courtroom a couple of dozen times and he is a very fair but tough judge, actually one of the very best. Perponderance of evidence not beyond reasonable doubt....big, big, big, difference. A civil infraction only has to show that by a 51% chance than not that you committed the offense, therefore if by careful documentation (which if all the correct blanks are filled in on the WA State Collision Form) than enough evidence was presented by the state to prove it's case. Usually people only win if the judge decides that the incorrect charge was chosen, not detailed enough report or the person presents an explanation that creates doubt. YOU have still not explained the cause of the accident, that would have been the deciding factor, not whinning that the state didn't have enough evidence. Was someone else somehow at fault, did you swerve to avoid another vehicle? Trust me, the guardrail did not cause the accident, it was what simply stopped your momentum. Your wrecked car was enough evidence for the trooper to determine the cause. It's very simple, if your vehicle was in motion and struck a stationary object; you were either going too fast to navigate the curve or going too fast to counter act the water and oil on the roadway (conditions), it doesn't matter what the speed limit or speed advirsory is, you have to adjust your speed to meet conditions (ie fog, snow, traffic congestion). Otherwise every other vehicle including the trooper's would have also impacted the guardrail, correct? Ok, enough bitch slap, from now on don't take traffic enforcement personally. Look at your actions from a objective viewpoint. Traffic violations are not crimes, no intent has to be proved, in fact knowledge is not part of the elements of an infraction. All that needs to be shown is that a violation occurred. From now on watch other vehicles and just think to yourself what you could ticket people for. If an accident suddenly occurred right next to you what would the cause be. Following too close, not yielding, improper lane change, too fast for conditions. When you drive rush hour, just look at how many people are following too close, not yielding during lane change and going too fast within all that congestion (ie conditions). Just because everyone is doing it doesn't mean it doesn't cause accidents. Don't be mad, just learn from life's daily lessons. The infraction is issued only because it is what was determined to be the cause of the accident, all accidents have a cause. Peace brother :)
Yeah, Tim, quit bitchin'.
I beat you up yesterday, so lets talk about the corrupt judges and courts today.
No one seemingly wants to talk about that. The judge reads the report, and lacking a convincing argument, takes the side of the "trained observer", the blue-gun thug.
So, cop writes a ticket, and save for not speaking english, or engaging legal help, the municipality turns you upside down, and shakes until a hundred dollar bill falls from your pocket.
I got a ticket for a supposed violation, that I knew wasn't a violation, because I was personally involved when they changed the law 15 years ago. I had to lobby the prosecutor hard to drop it, so I wouldn't have to take a whole day off work to defend. The beyatch persecutor (sic) didn't drop until I got a call on the way to court.
Got another one, and even with an email from the traffic engineer saying "we don't know why that sign is there, we don't have a record of it in our files" the puppet judge said, I can reduce to $89 as mitigation, you can defer for $100 "administrative fee", which, like a previous comment says, is like slipping the Mexican cop some $20's, or pay the $101 fine.
I was incredulous that he could only reduce to $89, which I found out later through research was incorrect. I had to pay $9 for a CD of the trial, and by then, the judge had been "reassigned" so it couldn't be retried.
Bottom line, I want judges to obey the law. Not taking your printed materials is high hubris. He should have taken them.
Saying the $100 is an "administrative fee" is so much bullsheyt. Show me the analysis that says the cost of administering deferral for a year happens to come out to $100.
Won't happen.
I think you deserved the ticket. I am sorry you had to pay money. If you drive more attentively, so I am not next to you should you crash again, I am happy.
Too bad, though, that none of your faithful readers chose to note this egregious miscarriage of justice by the black-robed robber barrons.
The Geezer
www.hatemalepost.blogspot.com
Hi,
I just happened to find your RE blog today and ran across your court posting.
I had the misfortune of dealing with Judge Chow a few years ago. Long story short, it was in small claims court. Sewer problems (constant backing up of sewer pipe into my house) caused a big replacement job.
My neighbor who shared the line first agreed to share the cost, then reneigned. So off to court.
Same story: Chow didn't listen, didn't consider the evidence and just tossed off a 60 second decision.
It's an example of how the system really doesn't work very well most of the time, but MOST of the time, we aren't subjected to the shortcomings.
It's a bummer man what can I say. You should have gotten a lawyer if you really wanted to get off. That's the only way you will get a judge to listen to your arguments.
I was in Judge Chow's court. HE IS A RACIST NAZI! Any one with a lawyer or is Chinese case dismissed. Anyone else GUILTY! He forces defendants to testify against themselves claiming it is a civil case. This is a lesson the reason this clown(endorsed by the KCBA) was elected is because he gets it's members clients off. But screws anyone who is not Chinese.
Generally speaking, any nonlawyer who fights their own ticket is going to lose because infractions are generally won or lost on procedural grounds, not substantive, so my only comment would be to hire a lawyer next time, not whine about the judge doing their job. More probable than not is a frightening low standard, but that's a problem with the judiciary, not the bench. Other good traffic lawyers I have used in addition to the Mucklestones are Andrew Phipps and Mitch Greene, both have websites. I use them and I AM a lawyer, just because that's not my niche and it's a very specialized area of law, if simple. So instead of whining I'd take this as a learning experience and move on. IF YOU MUST defend yourself in the future, then at least read the IRLJ's enough to know what the judge MUST dismiss so that you can make an intellegent argument.
I need to know where I can buy that t-shirt on the Internet.
I bought it in Miami about 4 years ago, and it is not in top shape anymore sadly..
So anyone got a link to where I can buy that t-shirt?
Thanks in advance :)
Judge Chow just happens to be a brilliant judge. Maybe if you were more familiar with the rules of the court you would see that he has alot more to take into consideration when he is making a ruling than the details of your case that you are focused on. I have observed over 20 hours of Judge Chow presiding and never once have I seen him rule in an unfair fashion. Harshly maybe, but not unfair. That is his job though people...I'd like to see one of you whos judging him, do his job for one HOUR let alone one day... ;) Just sayin!
Post a Comment