speed in relation to condition?
 

so i was involve in a car accident today. the light turned green so i was accelerating and barely reached 40km/h before having to slammed the brakes coz 4 cars down the car all of a sudden stopped. i'm not sure what was the reason but anyways the first 2 cars managed to stop and i didn't manage to stop in time so i rear ended the guy in front of me and he rear ended the guy in front of him. i was under 50km/h for sure coz i was just accelerating. there was an event across the street so there was cops and everything.. anyways they decided to just give me a ticket for speed relative to condition. i asked him why he just said you were going too fast when cars are stopped. i mean really?? there's a car sudden stopped and you say i was going too fast when other cars are slowing down or stopped? i'm not even going 50km/h... my airbag didn't even deploy and stuff... is there even a point of disputing? or should i just pay it off and not waste my time?

I'm assuming this is what they charged you with?


Careless driving prohibited
144 (1) A person must not drive a motor vehicle on a highway

(a) without due care and attention,

(b) without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway, or

(c) at a speed that is excessive relative to the road, traffic, visibility or weather conditions.
You likely could have been charged with following too close as an alternative charge.

Following too closely
162 (1) A driver of a vehicle must not cause or permit the vehicle to follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the amount and nature of traffic on and the condition of the highway.

The accident is clearly your fault. What do you think you should be ticketed for?

sure the accident i'm to blame for here's no denying that. i wasn't even ticketed by the officer on the scene it was an officer that came afterward and just gave me a ticket. it was a sudden stop thing and we were just accelerating out of a traffic light. it's not like i was tailgating him. i'd prolly won't have as much forward momentum and would prolly have made it to a stop before hitting him. and like i said. the officers weren't even looking until they heard the tire screech and just makes the assumption?

and yes zulutango i'm charged withh 144 (1) c. i'm not arguing about the accident. i'm arguing about the fact they just gives me a ticket based on assumption. does that mean every single rear ender = you get a ticket?

just a quick question. all these say HIGHWAY on it. i'm just in a city street going less than 40km/hr. does those charge even apply to me?

Read the definition of "highway" in the motor vehicle act.

And yes, that charge does apply to your situation. They don't need to have witnessed the actual collision to issue the ticket, they can go off of statements at scene and the "result" that they see in front of them.

I think that any at-fault driver involved in an accident should be ticketed by the officer attending the scene. People who have accidents are much more deserving of tickets than safe drivers who happen to violate the laws that pretty much everyone violates in order to drive safely.

Distance / Speed / Time. Those are the 3 variables involved in your accident. Since you can't be ticketed for having delayed reaction time, the officer can either choose distance (following too close) or speed (too fast for conditions.)

There are no assumptions that need to be made here.

The question that comes to mind.....if you were not going too fast for the conditions, why did you run into the back of the cars ahead? That would likely be one you get asked by ICBC and at any trial you schedule. Unless you say that you deliberately rammed the cars ahead or you were driving without due care ( not paying attention) or following too closely, then there has to be the answer that got you the VT.

Yet another speeding ticket that should instead have been issued as one for following too closely or driving without due care.

But of course it's easier to further the war on speed when you can point to all the speeding tickets and say "we have a speeding problem". We don't have a speed problem in BC, we have a problem with distracted, inattentive drivers. But the stats don't show that because they're skewed, and as long as they're skewed towards targeting the low hanging fruit rather than the genuinely problematic infractions road safety in BC will not improve as intended.

I dunno...I'm kinda not cool with that.

I've been in 2 at fault accidents in my life. Both low speed under 30KPH impacts where I rear ended someone.

The first time, was the same thing sort of, but we were all turning left and someone from incoming traffic ran the red.

Second time, my brakes locked up when I hit a patch of black ice during winter.

It was a crappy deal for me. I was going pretty slow too.

But doesn't mean I deserved a ticket.

( I never got one from it).

I think to just jump on the guy and say he deserved one is a bit harsh.

Where I grew up they had a section in the highway traffic act that was called..."failing to stop in the clear distance ahead". If we had one here in Bc that would cover all these situations. Those smart NZ'ers figured that anyone driving a car or Mc was responsible for not running into anything ahead of them.


Playing devil's advocate here....let me preface this by saying I was not at either of your crashes to examine what happened.....but...had you maintained a minimum of 2 seconds following time to allow for reaction time and distance, then the first crash would not have happened, second crash you also were overdriving your safe stopping distance. My drivers courses spends time talking about black ice, how to spot it and the requirement to allow more stopping distance.

Driving too fast for conditions is not the same as speeding. When the violation notice is attached to a motor vehicle accident by a driver that made a driving error, the violation notice is completely appropriate.

You feeling that you don't deserve a ticket is an opinion. ICBC defines "bad drivers" as those who have a history of violation tickets but may never have had an accident claim ever. They penalize these drivers thousands of dollars a year. That's being "harsh." The real bad drivers are those that crash and raise rates for everyone else. As you can see from your case, accidents happen at low speeds too, where you thought you were driving within the law. Those that crash deserve tickets and the associated penalties that come with it.

If you look at ICBC's "quick stats", you'll see that they've lumped "driving too fast for conditions" in with "speed" and "excessive speed" in a table titled "Speed".


That I agree with. I don't agree that the crash in question deserved a "speeding" ticket but rather a "following too close" ticket.

I agree with you. Following too close describes the offence better. I'd like to get the police the benefit of the doubt in thinking that they are not trying to manipulate the statistics to justify the "speed is the number one reason for accidents" mantra.

I agree it is a bit harsh to give someone who had just been in a motor vehicle collision a ticket.. but I look at it this way, there is no such thing as a motor vehicle "accident". I can't think of any situation (besides ones that involve wild animals or the environment) where it could have been avoidable by the initiating party. You were obviously either following too closely, were not paying attention, or speeding relative to the condition, or all of the above to have caused that collision.

Secondly, in regards to handing out the ticket. Put yourself in the shoes of the other individuals who were NOT at fault, but had their cars damaged, and or themselves injured because of the person that is at fault. Yes ICBC will get the person at fault anyways, but I have been at the scene of a collision where the drivers who are not at fault are livid, and are choked up at the fact that someone pretty much just ruined their whole day, week, or month... Unless evidence does not support a VT, I will usually serve one to the driver at fault.