Question for the LEO's

[Jade Tigress]

On the way to work this morning my husband was rear ended. He was on the expressway and traffic was typically congested and stop and go. He was slowing down and was going about 30 when a woman slammed into him at about 60. He said it didn't look like she even tried to slow down, she must have been looking down, or something. He overheard her telling the officer that "the sun must have been in her eyes". It's an overcast day. The officer asked no questions about what happened, just wrote an accident report and left.

Anyway, an accident report is filed, but no ticket was issued to the woman. I found that unusual. Is that common? Why wouldn't she be given a ticket for that?

Thanks.

 

[Drac]

On the way to work this morning my husband was rear ended. He was on the expressway and traffic was typically congested and stop and go. He was slowing down and was going about 30 when a woman slammed into him at about 60. He said it didn't look like she even tried to slow down, she must have been looking down, or something. He overheard her telling the officer that "the sun must have been in her eyes". It's an overcast day. The officer asked no questions about what happened, just wrote an accident report and left.

Anyway, an accident report is filed, but no ticket was issued to the woman. I found that unusual. Is that common? Why wouldn't she be given a ticket for that?

Thanks.

She'd have gotten one from me...Yes, that is unusal..Every jurisdiction does thing different..

 

[LawDog]

It is very difficult to answer a question like this one. Every accident has it's own unique situations and a multitude of variables.
Each individual state & local agency has it's own policies & procedures on how to handle various tasks.
The best way to get the correct answer is to go to that law enforcement agency and ask the officer involved or a supervisor directly.

 

[exile]

On the way to work this morning my husband was rear ended. He was on the expressway and traffic was typically congested and stop and go. He was slowing down and was going about 30 when a woman slammed into him at about 60. He said it didn't look like she even tried to slow down, she must have been looking down, or something. He overheard her telling the officer that "the sun must have been in her eyes". It's an overcast day. The officer asked no questions about what happened, just wrote an accident report and left.

Anyway, an accident report is filed, but no ticket was issued to the woman. I found that unusual. Is that common? Why wouldn't she be given a ticket for that?

Thanks.

Wow, that's bizarre, Pam! I've been rear-ended, and there was no question: it was the guy behind me who was at fault. No matter what happens, they are responsible for the accident (apart from cases where a `chain' of rear-end collisions occurs; there it's the rearmost driver's fault).

I had witnesses. But the officer indicated that they wouldn't be needed. The rear-end situation was obvious (it was somehow clear from the physical evidence that I hadn't been driving backwards) and automatically put the other people in the wrong. And other people who I talked to about it afterward indicated that when they'd been rear-ended, it was the same thing.

Something sounds seriously wrong in the picture you've described.

 

[Carol]

There is a difference between fault in an accident and being cited with a moving violation.

I recently rear ended somebody. I was clearly at fault but I didn't get a ticket....I'm just going to get a nasty hike on my insurance.

 

[Drac]

The best way to get the correct answer is to go to that law enforcement agency and ask the officer involved or a supervisor directly.

Yep, that will work too..Thanks LawDog...

 

[LawDog]

I just bet that someone that we all know just batted her eye lashes to get out of a ticket.

 

[Drac]

I just bet that someone that we all know just batted her eye lashes to get out of a ticket.

Yeah probably...

 

[Carol]

I just bet that someone that we all know just batted her eye lashes to get out of a ticket.

No sir, I...uh...crashed in front of a Dunkin Donuts. I'm afraid not even my baby blues could keep the fine gent from the Danvers barracks from his coffee...after he made sure were were OK, of course.

 

[LawDog]

In front of a D.D.? That's like having an accident infront of a police station.

 

[Drac]

In front of a D.D.? That's like having an accident infront of a police station.

In some cities YEP..

 

[Jade Tigress]

I just bet that someone that we all know just batted her eye lashes to get out of a ticket.

LOL! I asked my husband about that...he said the woman was about 60. (not that she couldn't have been a fantatic looking 60-year-old, just not the batting eyelashes type LOL)

Seriously, thanks for the replies. I just thought it was really weird that she wouldn't get a ticket for a moving violation. I mean, if you rear-end someone aren't you at the least driving too fast for conditions? My husband didn't hit the guy in front of him, he had plenty of room. And this is morning rush hour for cryin out loud. Not like my husband slammed on the brakes to avoid a dog running across the street or something. Anyway, it seemed odd to me so I thought I'd ask what the norm is.

 

[Drac]

Anyway, it seemed odd to me so I thought I'd ask what the norm is.

As LawDog said each situation is unique....

 

[jks9199]

Each situation is different, and each agency has different policies. Then there are state laws, too...

I've had pretty extensive crash reconstruction training. Better than 90% of rear end accidents are going to be the fault of the driver who hits the first car. Driver inattention or following too closely are almost always, in my experience, the cause. However, weather conditions, sunlight, and other factors can figure into it.

That said -- as others have noted -- being at fault, and being charged are two different questions. I know officers who don't cite unless there's an injury or major damage (in their opinion), and are within their agency's policies when they make that call. Others almost have to cite someone in a crash... For me, when I was in patrol, I generally cited the driver at fault, or most at fault unless it was clear that both contributed fairly equally or were seriously wrong. At the same time, others would figure that the hit on the insurance and fixing the car, along with the DMV record of the crash, might be enough in some cases, and rarely cited.

I didn't work the crash; I don't know what the officer who did determined. He may have found mitigating factors that you and your husband were unaware of. I personally generally tried to explain my decision to all parties involved, just to avoid this sort of puzzlement.

So... You ask what's the norm? There probably isn't really one!

 

[Carol]

In front of a D.D.? That's like having an accident infront of a police station.

And in front of a Dunkins with no drive through at that...

 

[michaeledward]

I'm curious what traffic violation you might think the woman may have made? If she was driving 60 miles an hour on an expressway, that is usually within the speed limit, isn't it?

I'm not certain there are laws against being a bad driver. The police department, I have to imagine, has no part to play in the determination of liability from an insurance standpoint.

Drac, you say you would issue a ticket ... for what?

 

[Kacey]

I'm curious what traffic violation you might think the woman may have made? If she was driving 60 miles an hour on an expressway, that is usually within the speed limit, isn't it?

I'm not certain there are laws against being a bad driver. The police department, I have to imagine, has no part to play in the determination of liability from an insurance standpoint.

Drac, you say you would issue a ticket ... for what?

Well, I'm not a LEO - but when my father was hit in similar circumstances, the driver who hit him was ticketed for following too closely.

 

[Jade Tigress]

Well, I'm not a LEO - but when my father was hit in similar circumstances, the driver who hit him was ticketed for following too closely.

That's along the lines I was thinking.

This wasn't a little fender bender. The woman's car was totalled. My husbands SUV (company vehicle) will most likely need the bumper replaced. He was wearing his seat belt, but his glasses went flying off his head and were damaged. Thank God neither him, nor the other driver, appear to have any serious injuries, though I suspect my husband is going to be quite sore tomorrow.

 

[jks9199]

I'm curious what traffic violation you might think the woman may have made? If she was driving 60 miles an hour on an expressway, that is usually within the speed limit, isn't it?

I'm not certain there are laws against being a bad driver. The police department, I have to imagine, has no part to play in the determination of liability from an insurance standpoint.

Drac, you say you would issue a ticket ... for what?

You've asked a couple of questions.

First -- most states use a very similar traffic code, adapted from sources like the Model Traffic Code. Otherwise, you'd have to really worry about what was legal in each state as you drove. Imagine if, say, Virginia chose to drive on the right side of the road and Maryland used the left... Talk about a nightmare! Most states have laws against being a bad driver. In Virginia, for example there is the state code violation of reckless driving for people who drive in such a way to endanger other people or property. There are several specific instances, like reckless by speed or by driving a car with defective brakes, in addition to the general law. There are also laws requiring that you be in control of the car, and many jurisdictions have laws requiring you to give your full-time attention to driving. In particular to rear-end collisions are the following offenses: following too closely (in other words, following so close that you cannot stop if the car in front of you does), driving too fast for the conditions (if you're blasting through stop & go traffic at 60...even though you're not speeding by the posted limit, you're driving too fast for the traffic conditions; similarly, driving too fast to control the car on icy or foggy roads are other examples), reckless driving (multiple reasons; by definition, if you hit someone, you're endangering them!), fail to pay full time attention (hit them because you were changing the radio station, talking on the cell phone, putting on make-up or playing the violin), and various defective equipment violations if the cause was mechanical disrepair. In the case at hand -- I'd probably have charged either following too closely, or fail to pay full time attention, depending on the exact circumstances and statements.

As to fault... The police investigate accidents for simple reasons; we're there, there was often a violation of the traffic code, and we're interested in making the roads safer. Police reports are also used by the highway department and other similar planning bodies to address road design and designate areas for traffic calming measures, or other changes to increase safety. The insurance companies typically review police reports (if any) of accidents, as well as the statements made in the claims by the insured. Depending on circumstances, they may contact the officer who investigated the crash. In some cases, they even have their own accident reconstructionists investigate the case. When they're done, the assign fault for payment, and they can assign fault in proportions (driver 1 was 70% at fault, but driver 2 was 30% at fault because they stopped in the roadway - in violation of the law - without cause, for example...) Police reports generally simply identify the driver most at fault; the one who's actions caused the wreck. The insurance companies dicker over how much each will pay... And they usually do it all behind the scenes.

 

[Kreth]

Drac, you say you would issue a ticket ... for what?

Reckless driving, following too closely, speed unsafe for conditions.