My body hit the car, not my bike - Careless driving ticket

[hedo2002]

Rob is correct. It was basically SOP, (Standard Operating Procedure) when I was on traffic patrol, that in cases like this you lay the careless charge knowing it will be reduced to follow too closely. The crown almost always did this, (unless the accused acted like a dick or said something that sunk them).

OP your stating that you came off the bike as you didn't an appropriate "escape route" (you would have gone into oncoming traffic or a construction tractor), will do nothing than prove the crown's case for them that due to undue care and attention you hit the car, (although it would make an even stronger case for follow too clse. The MTO handbook advises to always have an escape route. Although under ideal conditions you "may not" have been following too close. In a construction zone you were. You MUST remember there is always the chance that there will be loose gravel/sand on a road near a construction zone. Just this morning in my cage I entered a construction zone I enter everyday, (today I wasin the cage). I was surprised to find about 4" of water on the road, (due to weekend rain). there has never been water there before.

As for the other driver stopping the claim. If it was entered into their insurers system as a claim and assigned a claim number, from my understanding it is too late. Sure the other driver can choose to not collect on the claim and say he is going to pay for damage themselves. But it still remains in their system, as a not at fault collision. The insurer has no incentve to remove it, even if their client made the claim they would have collected from your insurer, (exactly what TD with state farm last year when I was rear ended by a bike). It is similiar to you calling your insurer to say you were hit, and want to make a claim, then the damages are only $200 and your deductible is $300. The insurer never pays out but it still remains on the system as a claim.

 

[coyo]

Following too closely is the de facto charge in this situation as it's a slam dunk. If a car stops in front of you and you hit it, in good visibility and on dry pavement, then the least that was going on was you were following too closely for you to be able to stop safely. It's the careless charge that would be hard to support, without a witness.

That's not how the court sees it these days and many follow to close charges have been thrown out in rear end collisions as soon as no witness can provide evidence that the car was too close. If there's no witness to state that the following vehicle was too close then the charge isn't supported. An example of why it's inattention (or the new distracted driving); looking at the stereo, adjusting the heat, playing with your phone, having a big yawn can all take your eyes off the fact that the car in front is braking and the rear ender occurs, despite that prior to that the following car was at a safe distance and that's why it's careless; "without due care and attention".

The careless is the only charge that can be laid at the time, however the court is usually happy to allow the plea to follow to close later in the process.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

That's not how the court sees it these days and many follow to close charges have been thrown out in rear end collisions as soon as no witness can provide evidence that the car was too close. If there's no witness to state that the following vehicle was too close then the charge isn't supported. An example of why is inattention (or the new distracted driving); looking at the stereo, adjusting the heat, playing with your phone, having a big yawn can all take your eyes off the fact that the car in front is braking and the rear ender occurs, despite that prior to that the following car was at a safe distance and that's why it's careless; "without due care and attention".

The careless is the only charge that can be laid at the time, however the court is usually happy to allow the plea to follow to close later in the process.

And if you yawn, look at your stereo, or your cell phone and have insufficient time to react to the vehicle in front of you, you were then following too closely. The prima facie evidence covers the charge. To refute it the accused would have to testify, which is generally a very, very bad thing to do.

You're missing the point; the charge isn't "follow to close." It's "operation without due care and attention. As hedo2002 said (and as I intimated previously) this is a tactic to make sure that the APPROPRIATE conviction is obtained, generally by pleading down to it.

 

[coyo]

And if you yawn, look at your stereo, or your cell phone and have insufficient time to react to the vehicle in front of you, you were then following too closely. The prima facie evidence covers the charge. To refute it the accused would have to testify, which is generally a very, very bad thing to do.

You're missing the point; the charge isn't "follow to close." It's "operation without due care and attention. As hedo2002 said (and as I intimated previously) this is a tactic to make sure that the APPROPRIATE conviction is obtained, generally by pleading down to it.

We'll have to disagree; if you're doing anything other than driving then you're not operating with due care and attention which is careless. Unless there's evidence of some other reason for the collision then it's careless. That the courts will accept the plea for follow to close despite there being a lack of evidence to support the charge is a convenience to both sides.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

We'll have to disagree; if you're doing anything other than driving then you're not operating with due care and attention which is careless. Unless there's evidence of some other reason for the collision then it's careless. That the courts will accept the plea for follow to close despite there being a lack of evidence to support the charge is a convenience to both sides.

"Operation without due care and attention" is a significantly higher charge than "follow too close." It also has a higher threshold of proof. You definition fits mine, which would make the electronic devices section of the HTA unnecessary, but the law sees it otherwise.

 

[hedo2002]

I also agree with coyo. Following too close is a VERY subjective term, that is why I never laid that charge but went with Careless. It is actually easier to prove that the driver was driving with undue care and "attention" as Rob said, basically the crown would ask the driver, (if they choose to testify), to explain to the court, how if they were paying attention, then how did they miss the fact that the vehicle in front was stooped/stopping. If they said for example, "the road was covered with snow and my car slid: then the crown would folow with, "oh so you weren't using due care to ensure your vehicle had proper stopping distance, and by extension you were driving with undue care". If they said something like. "I was looking for an address", (this was pre GPS), the crown would follow with, "oh so you weren't paying attention to the other vehicles using the road"

BUT most drivers feared the Careless charge much more so when presented with the option of follow too close they grabbed at it.

 

[Danner]

Hi all,

Just wanted to update that a few of the replies scared me off the forum. I haven't been able to figure out how to delete the post or the thread as one poster suggested I should do (I followed the faq steps, but it doesn't behave the way faq describes).

Anyway, thank you all for your inputs. I was mainly searching to see if anyone had been in a similar situation and since then I have found many instances where drivers/riders are given the careless driving charge for much less reason - as you all know, it is a super generic offence.

No updates regarding the status of my case though. I may post an update if things begin to happen (I am learning that the process of defending yourself may take months?).

Cheers.

 

[FJRrider]

Many boards will not let a normal level user to alter a post after a certain amount of time has passed.

 

[Bagman]

I'd listen to the advice provided by the officers giving it in this thread. As far as I know, the officer needs a lot more evidence than a single event to get a conviction of careless driving. The officers needs to witness you do a few things that amount to careless driving. He was eating a burrito, while reading the paper, changed lanes without signaling (cutting off a car) and THEN hit the rear of a vehicle. That's careless.

What you did was simply "Follow to Close." (re: that's the charge they'll go with in court).

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I just briefly glanced at an appeal decision. The driver left the road, his vehicle was off the road for over 100 metres and then flipped, killing one of his passengers. The original finding of guilt for 'careless' was overturned.

A momentary lapse in attention is not considered to be a significant diversion from the behaviour of a normal person and is, therefore, not grounds for a finding of 'careless.' Typically several different factors are involved.

 

[unL33T]

Dunno if it was mentioned already or not but the guy that said you cannot stop an insurance claim is wrong. I've done it.

Guy said he would pay me for damages, changed his mind, I made a claim, his insurance company called him and told him he was at fault and his rates would go up, he called me back and offered me the money plus some for screwing me around, I took the money and cancelled my claim. Insurance said it was fine.

 

[griff2]

Dunno if it was mentioned already or not but the guy that said you cannot stop an insurance claim is wrong. I've done it.

Guy said he would pay me for damages, changed his mind, I made a claim, his insurance company called him and told him he was at fault and his rates would go up, he called me back and offered me the money plus some for screwing me around, I took the money and cancelled my claim. Insurance said it was fine.

Stopping a claim is not the same as stopping a reported at-fault crash from remaining on your record once the insurance company is aware of it.

 

[unL33T]

Stopping a claim is not the same as stopping a reported at-fault crash from remaining on your record once the insurance company is aware of it.

Insurance only cares about claims and convictions. Yes, the conviction will still hurt you but there won't be an at fault claim against you.

 

[hedo2002]

Insurance only cares about claims and convictions. Yes, the conviction will still hurt you but there won't be an asset fault claim against you.

Not so if your insurer is aware that you were involved in a collision and they have the details which under the FDR indicate you would be at fault, when it comes time to renew do you think they will say.. "oh all is good, we didn't pay out so we will just ignore it"..lmao the collision stills shows your an "increased risk" and they will use that to justify a rate increase. This is why brokers will tell you to NOt report or say anything to insurer. Rates are based upon your level of assesed risk not just if they have to pay out. If your deemed at fault for a collision your rates will increase.

 

[unL33T]

Not so if your insurer is aware that you were involved in a collision and they have the details which under the FDR indicate you would be at fault, when it comes time to renew do you think they will say.. "oh all is good, we didn't pay out so we will just ignore it"..lmao the collision stills shows your an "increased risk" and they will use that to justify a rate increase. This is why brokers will tell you to NOt report or say anything to insurer. Rates are based upon your level of assesed risk not just if they have to pay out. If your deemed at fault for a collision your rates will increase.

Yes they will because it's not on your record. If they do include it then it's time to shop for rates because other insurance companies can only give you rates based on actual claims. Not rumors they heard that you might've been in an accident and thought about making a claim.

 

[hedo2002]

Not sure why you think it is rumor that you were involved in a collision. If the other party reported the collision and provided your details to their insurer, that insurer would have been in contact with the OPs insurer as it was a rear end collsion meaning they would have sought to recover damges from the OPs insurer. Now if the other party contact their insurer and says they will not be filing a claim the insurers don't then go and delete the collision report.

Once a collision is reported to your insurer it IS on your record. Weather a claim is paid out or not is not relevant to the risk factor your represent to the insurer. If you have had a collision your a higher risk, and you can bet the insurer will use that to THEIR advantage, they are your bud, they are in the business to extract every last cent from us they can.

Yes they will because it's not on your record. If they do include it then it's time to shop for rates because other insurance companies can only give you rates based on actual claims. Not rumors they heard that you might've been in an accident and thought about making a claim.

 

[unL33T]

Alright maybe I'm wrong but the only reason the one guy settled with me was because his company told him his rates would go up if he didn't. Collision report was filed regardless. Whenever I've switched companies they've only ever asked about at fault claims and convictions. Nothing about accidents that had no claims.

 

[JFD]

Alright maybe I'm wrong but the only reason the one guy settled with me was because his company told him his rates would go up if he didn't. Collision report was filed regardless. Whenever I've switched companies they've only ever asked about at fault claims and convictions. Nothing about accidents that had no claims.

I made an inquiry once to my insurance about some hail damage - i didn't make any claims but i got a notice soon after that my comprehensive was removed due to reported damage (despite not making a claim).

 

[unL33T]

I made an inquiry once to my insurance about some hail damage - i didn't make any claims but i got a notice soon after that my comprehensive was removed due to reported damage (despite not making a claim).

Yes if your vehicle is damaged they will not give you comprehensive. I've bought old vehicles and had them refuse to provide coverage until I get it inspected to prove it is in good condition.

 

[hedo2002]

They would only ask you about the details on a reported collision so if the other party, (as in this case), filed a report with their insurer and that insurer advised your insurer, then they would ask. Do we really think ANY insurer isn't going to take ANY opportunity to raise their rates???

Alright maybe I'm wrong but the only reason the one guy settled with me was because his company told him his rates would go up if he didn't. Collision report was filed regardless. Whenever I've switched companies they've only ever asked about at fault claims and convictions. Nothing about accidents that had no claims.