I received a citation for a rolling stop. As I approached an empty four-way intersection at approximately 7AM, already traveling under 20 MPH (I was at university, not to mention driving cautiously because of poor conditions), my brakes locked up traveling over a patch of ice. Observing that the intersection was empty, I eased off the brakes and traveled through before my back wheels had completely stopped and weight had come to rest on them. Worth noting is that my tires did in fact halt, but the car continued to travel on the ice. This was very clearly a case of a rolling stop as opposed to skipping a stop sign.
Of course I pleaded not guilty and my court date is being determined within the next two weeks. What's your advice for my trial?
I received a citation for a rolling stop. As I approached an empty four-way intersection at approximately 7AM, already traveling under 20 MPH (I was at university, not to mention driving cautiously because of poor conditions), my brakes locked up traveling over a patch of ice. Observing that the intersection was empty, I eased off the brakes and traveled through before my back wheels had completely stopped and weight had come to rest on them. Worth noting is that my tires did in fact halt, but the car continued to travel on the ice. This was very clearly a case of a rolling stop as opposed to skipping a stop sign.
Of course I pleaded not guilty and my court date is being determined within the next two weeks. What's your advice for my trial?
Get some evidence: ask for photos from a security camera, ask for their evidence of you driving through, etc.
I was under the impression that "rolling stop" was an oxymoron used for humorous effect. Doesn't the phrase imply your wheels are still turning? You probably want to make sure your words mean what you think they do, especially in court. Just say you were sliding on the ice if that is what happened.
Driving through the stop sign without stopping is a moving violation. If you're really driving for conditions, your car should stop before you reach the stop sign. Yes, even with snow on the ground. You can be on icy conditions and you should still be able to stop in time.
If you "skidded through" the stop sign anyway, you STILL should stop after that.
All this business about when your wheels stopped etc sounds like a rationalization frankly. If you were really skidding with your brakes locked up, then describe it that way. From your description I have no idea when your skid really started, and what actually occurred. The judge is going to think the same.
I'd get my story straight: how far were you from the stop sign when you started braking? Did you simply slide on ice, lose control and slid thru the intersection? How far?
Not meaning to be accusatory... Just your characterization of what happened doesn't sound too clear at all and doesn't actually sound very sincere. More like a spin of events. Thought you should hear it since the judge will likely see it same as I do.
If you are pleading not guilty DO NOT use the phrase "rolling stop" as it will hurt your explanation. It implies that you were not planning on coming to a full stop which is an admission of guilt.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I had amnesia once, or maybe twice. I don't remember.
Driving through the stop sign without stopping is a moving violation. If you're really driving for conditions, your car should stop before you reach the stop sign. Yes, even with snow on the ground. You can be on icy conditions and you should still be able to stop in time.
If you "skidded through" the stop sign anyway, you STILL should stop after that.
All this business about when your wheels stopped etc sounds like a rationalization frankly. If you were really skidding with your brakes locked up, then describe it that way. From your description I have no idea when your skid really started, and what actually occurred. The judge is going to think the same.
I'd get my story straight: how far were you from the stop sign when you started braking? Did you simply slide on ice, lose control and slid thru the intersection? How far?
Not meaning to be accusatory... Just your characterization of what happened doesn't sound too clear at all and doesn't actually sound very sincere. More like a spin of events. Thought you should hear it since the judge will likely see it same as I do.
Sorry OP, but I have to agree here. According to law it's your responsibility to operate the vehicle according to the road conditions.
That, and "you can't fight City Hall". Unless you have lots of freetime and nothing else to emotionally invest in.
AFAIK cops never show up in court for traffic violation appeals, so if you show up and he doesn't, it'll get dropped. Take comfort in that, but don't get complacent.
AFAIK cops never show up in court for traffic violation appeals, so if you show up and he doesn't, it'll get dropped. Take comfort in that, but don't get complacent.
Um, no. When a police officer writes a ticket, they also write your summons date to coorespond with their day to sit around in court and provide testimony for every citation they have written. The appeals are scheduled likewise.
If the officer is not there the day of for whatever reason, they'll postpone.
Besides, your talking about municipal court. They have provisions so that the system doesn't get bogged down. You will usually see a magistrate anyways, not a judge. A magistrate has the power to resolve municipal pleas by right of their own discresion and find you guilty. You would have to appeal which requires taking it to circuit court, tons of paperwork, money, and representation. What do you think, you'll get appointed a defender and a jury trial? lol.
Honestly OP, my advice is take this to court, see if the cop shows up, then take a plea deal from the prosecutor to plea down to a lesser charge. (Yes there are usually lesser charges than failure to stop).
Also "rolling stop" is not a term you should use. That is what they call it when you slow down but don't stop. The court views this no differently than driving straight through a stop sign without even slowing. And if you drive according to weather conditions, you need to brake sooner in snow. Your defense won't work anyways.
If you ignore my above advice and do take this into a trial, look into whether or not traffic violations are a civil or criminal offense in your state. If they're a criminal offense you're in luck! The burden of proof in a criminal case, "beyond reasonable doubt" is much steeper on the prosecution than it is in a civil case "preponderance of evidence". In fact, if it's a civil offense, there's almost no chance for you to win. The officer's word is really all that's needed to convict you in such a case.
Um, no. When a police officer writes a ticket, they also write your summons date to coorespond with their day to sit around in court and provide testimony for every citation they have written. The appeals are scheduled likewise.
True. This does not, however, mean that the cop will actually be there. I've taken every speeding ticket I've received to court and I'd say about 1/3 of the time the cop hasn't shown up to court.
If the officer is not there the day of for whatever reason, they'll postpone.
Not necessarily. I've had the cop not show up 4 times, and only once did the prosecution ask for a continuance. The other 3 times, the case was dismissed on the spot and I left court with no fines, no points on my license, and nothing reported to my insurance agency.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
Alright, to clarify (since apparently my original post was too ambiguous for some of you?), my tires stopped, because, you know, I was braking. My car did not, because, you know, it was on ice. And I was driving for the conditions, as I specifically mentioned already. I suppose my spidey senses just aren't strong enough to detect black ice. Also:
Um, no. When a police officer writes a ticket, they also write your summons date to coorespond with their day to sit around in court and provide testimony for every citation they have written. The appeals are scheduled likewise.
This is erroneous. Not only do police often not show up for civil citations, but in this particular case, I wasn't even issued a court date. My admission of guilt (or lack thereof) was to be mailed directly to the Fines Collection Center, and in the event that I should plead not guilty (I did), they would redirect it to the local prosecuting attorney. Unfortunately, the PA didn't receive my citation until last week, because it took the police office at least a month to report the citation to the FCC, and the FCC couldn't forward my not-guilty plea to the PA until they received the citation. However, you can and should believe that had I pleaded guilty and sent my money order to the FCC before the citation had been reported to them, there would be absolutely no problem at all. God bless the legal system.
The officer can also send a liaison from their precinct, sometimes one officer will show up for every ticket of that particular jurisdiction.
If you want to plead not guilty, pay an attorney to get it dropped to a non-moving violation. It will cost you a couple hundred bucks, but it's going to either way and this will not hurt your insurance as much (and likely a defensive driving course will be issued to remove any points, which is nice).
When you go in for your trial date, request the disclosure from the local attorney. I'm not sure if it's called the same thing in the US, but the disclosure is the state's case against you. You can then request the matter to be put over to give you time to review the material. This will delay your court date, and hopefully by the time your next date comes around the cop will be too busy to attend a second time.
When you go in for your trial date, request the disclosure from the local attorney. I'm not sure if it's called the same thing in the US, but the disclosure is the state's case against you. You can then request the matter to be put over to give you time to review the material. This will delay your court date, and hopefully by the time your next date comes around the cop will be too busy to attend a second time.
It is called "discovery" in the US. In at least some states, you are not entitled to discovery for a petty traffic ticket like this one, or you can only get it by filing a motion asking for it and explaining why it's necessary.
Alright, to clarify (since apparently my original post was too ambiguous for some of you?), my tires stopped, because, you know, I was braking. My car did not, because, you know, it was on ice. And I was driving for the conditions, as I specifically mentioned already. I suppose my spidey senses just aren't strong enough to detect black ice.
So we get that your car lost traction at some point.
After you lost traction, you slid through the stop sign. Did you THEN stop?
You skidded from what point before the stop sign to what point after the stop sign?
Did you EVER stop at any point before the blue & red flashers?
Because if the officer described it as a "rolling stop", rather than reckless driving (with you being in a skid and sliding through the stop sign), it sounds more like this:
You were driving about 20 or so, as you approached the stop sign, you didn't brake early enough for the conditions, and by the time your car reached the stop sign, you were still going too fast, and could sense the car sliding as you applied the brake further... the car slid for a split second, and you lifted off the brakes. (but instead of trying to pump the brakes and stop a foot or two later, you decided to go ahead and lift your foot off the brake, roll on through, figuring your "momentary slide" was technically enough to constitute a "stop" ).
If you had come to a COMPLETE STOP at any point, the cop would not call it a "rolling stop". To the outside observer, it just looks like you treating a stop sign like a flashing yellow.
You gently pushed on the brakes for a split second before you resumed driving on through. You can argue that you eased up on the brakes because you feared you'd lose control, but frankly it sounds like you were driving too fast for conditions, and should have braked earlier.
I would not make the "car was moving - tires were not" argument in court.
So we get that your car lost traction at some point.
After you lost traction, you slid through the stop sign. Did you THEN stop?
You skidded from what point before the stop sign to what point after the stop sign?
Did you EVER stop at any point before the blue & red flashers?
Because if the officer described it as a "rolling stop", rather than reckless driving (with you being in a skid and sliding through the stop sign), it sounds more like this:
You were driving about 20 or so, as you approached the stop sign, you didn't brake early enough for the conditions, and by the time your car reached the stop sign, you were still going too fast, and could sense the car sliding as you applied the brake further... the car slid for a split second, and you lifted off the brakes. (but instead of trying to pump the brakes and stop a foot or two later, you decided to go ahead and lift your foot off the brake, roll on through, figuring your "momentary slide" was technically enough to constitute a "stop" ).
If you had come to a COMPLETE STOP at any point, the cop would not call it a "rolling stop". To the outside observer, it just looks like you treating a stop sign like a flashing yellow.
You gently pushed on the brakes for a split second before you resumed driving on through. You can argue that you eased up on the brakes because you feared you'd lose control, but frankly it sounds like you were driving too fast for conditions, and should have braked earlier.
I would not make the "car was moving - tires were not" argument in court.
"Rolling stop" was my own phrasing, and I shouldn't have used it to avoid confusion. I was issued a citation for failing to stop, because the ice patch extended into the intersection, and by extension so did my car (a 1994 Explorer, to offer some perspective on size and weight). By the time my car stopped sliding (and came to a stop off the the ice), its front half was inside the intersection, and having already observed that it was empty, I deemed it more practical to ease off my brakes and continue on without allowing the weight of my car to settle on the back wheels (aka a "full stop"), which were still on the ice. I was able to stop the car, however briefly, once my front wheels left the ice because a) I was driving slow for conditions and b) my 4-wheel drive was engaged--again, for conditions.
The police officer tailed me from that point to the next intersection (50 yards further down at a stoplight) where I proceeded to make a right turn onto a highway, travel roughly another 100 yards to the next stoplight, and make a left. He then turned on his flashers about 20 yards after I completed the left turn (again, traveling on highway at this point after having exited campus at the first stoplight).
If you really want to fight this, take some advice from an attorney: Hire an attorney who specializes in this sort of thing and don't try to win "on principle". Its not worth it, and you won't succeed.
The best time to get out of a ticket is right when it is being given. If you cooperate usually they will "reduce" your ticket, for example from a speeding ticket to a false start. You have to pay more, but you don't get any points on your license. Also if you catch them violating your rights and are good with words, then you can usually get out of the ticket. For example, if they demand to look in your car for whatever reason.
For your situation, the chances of you arguing your way out are slim. My brother's car slid into a ditch due to ice, and they wrote him a ticket because he should have adjusted his speed for the weather conditions. Your best bet is to tell them you want to fight it, and then reschedule your court date a little bit before. Generally police officers put all their ticket cases on a single day, and it isn't worth their time to show up to fight one ticket that got rescheduled. If the officer doesn't show, you're free. If he does, I'm pretty sure you could ask him to 'reduce' it. Then again, if you inconvenienced him with a reschedule, don't count on it. Just ask calm and polite, officers are normal people after all and they do sympathize. My brother had a ticket dropped when he explained that he had the opportunity to go to West Point, and a ticket would make that impossible.
Then again, what do I know? I've never gotten ticket, this is just stuff I've been told. Try to drive safer next time.
Benalicious Hero, I know I'm probably belaboring the point, but better to work out your defense here, than when you see the judge, right?
If half your vehicle was in the intersection by the time you recovered your skid, that means the front of the vehicle got 4 1/2 feet into the intersection... ( 1994 explorer being 9 feet long ) the "stop line" for a stop sign is at least 4 feet from the intersection... And you should really be coming to almost stop well before you reach that point, creeping up to the stop sign.
So are you saying that you were approaching the stop sign at an appropriate rate of speed for the winter conditions and had slowed down to almost stop when you reached the stop line? But your car hit "black ice" and skidded 9 1/2 more feet into the intersection, at which point you decided... "well my tires momentarily stopped moving when I locked them up and skidded over 9 feet moving, so I guess I might as well hit the gas now" ? Then you drove through?
It sounds like you intended to slow down and barely stop as you rolled up (because it was early and nobody else around anyway), and maybe you hit a slippery spot and you had more speed than intended by the Ike you reached the stop sign, so you just went ahead and hiit the gas and slid on through after you slowed down at the stop sign.
I might be wrong, but if I were the judge, that is what I would believe happened.
Benalicious Hero, I know I'm probably belaboring the point, but better to work out your defense here, than when you see the judge, right?
If half your vehicle was in the intersection by the time you recovered your skid, that means the front of the vehicle got 4 1/2 feet into the intersection... ( 1994 explorer being 9 feet long ) the "stop line" for a stop sign is at least 4 feet from the intersection... And you should really be coming to almost stop well before you reach that point, creeping up to the stop sign.
So are you saying that you were approaching the stop sign at an appropriate rate of speed for the winter conditions and had slowed down to almost stop when you reached the stop line? But your car hit "black ice" and skidded 9 1/2 more feet into the intersection, at which point you decided... "well my tires momentarily stopped moving when I locked them up and skidded over 9 feet moving, so I guess I might as well hit the gas now" ? Then you drove through?
It sounds like you intended to slow down and barely stop as you rolled up (because it was early and nobody else around anyway), and maybe you hit a slippery spot and you had more speed than intended by the Ike you reached the stop sign, so you just went ahead and hiit the gas and slid on through after you slowed down at the stop sign.
I might be wrong, but if I were the judge, that is what I would believe happened.
To be more accurate, the front half of my vehicle was past the stop sign, not fully in the intersection. I don't know how to further clarify that reckless driving was not a cause here. As I've already stated, I was driving on a university campus between 15 and 20 mph with 4-wheel drive engaged, decelerating even further as I approached the stop sign, when my tires lost traction and proceeded to carry my car a little ways past it. At this point my car stopped (again, because the front wheels were carried off the ice slick, my 4-wheel drive was engaged, and I wasn't driving recklessly or too fast for conditions), and, being ahead of the stop sign and an obstruction in the (empty) intersection at this point, I deemed it safe and practical to proceed on through the intersection.
The police officer issued me a citation for failure to stop because a) I was past the stop sign before my car came to a halt and b) I did not halt long enough for the weight of my car to fall onto the back wheels (which were still on ice).
And why you put black ice in quotations as if it weren't a real occurrence and threat to drivers and pedestrians is beyond me.
I put "black ice" in quotations because, as a rehab doctor working with trauma and motor vehicle crashes every week, in the winter I hear the "black ice" excuse from drunk after drunk who caused a wreck. I'm sure you hit a slick patch of ice or lost traction for a second, but the term "black ice" gives the whole situation a kind of gravitas that goes with the danger of "black ice".
As for the rest of it:
First you said that half the vehicle was in the intersection (implying it would would be safer to keep going than to come to a stop). Now it's just the front Half of your vehicle that slid past the stop sign.
So if your nose just slid past the stop sign but before the intersection, but you then you decided to NOT come to a complete stop...
... how is that any different than doing the same thing right before the stop sign?
The ONLY differences I see are that (1) the location that you paused/failedtostop was slightly past the stop sign instead of at the stop sign and (2) you had just slid meaning you should be more cautious, not less.
Either way, you rolled up to the stop sign, and performed a "rolling stop". You were perfectly capable of stopping. This action was the a stereotype of the classic "rollin stop". Sliding up to the stop sign means you are under the same obligation to come to a complete stop as you would be if you had been under control.
You came up to the stop sign, slowed down just enough (in your opinion) to safely see the intersection was clear, and then rolled on through without ever coming to a full stop. All the business about sliding and "black ice" is irrelevant. You CHOSE not to stop, when you had control and were capable of stopping.
You're not supposed to scan the intersection as you are still moving, hesitate for a split second at the stop sign, then roll on through (classic "rolling stop" ). You're supposed to scan the intersection as you approach, come to a complete stop, then from a stationary position, scan the intersection, then finally proceed.
If you'd come to a complete stop like you're supposed to, it's unlikely the cop would have ticketed you.
Good luck, I hope you can get off, but I don't think you are going to, unless you change your story again.
Rules regarding whether a case will be dismissed based on an officer's presence will vary from municipality to municipality. Some just dismiss. Others will postpone. You should do some research on your municipality before going the "hope the cop doesn't show" route.
Another poster mentioned hiring an attorney. This is always good advice. The cost of an attorney will be more than the fine of the failure to stop violation, but you get the best chance of beating the ticket or, at worst, getting it plead down to a nonmoving violation.
The real costs of moving violations aren't the fines. They are realitvely negligible. I don't know how you drive or anything about your driving history. If you do drive a bit recklessly, or you already have some points on your record, then the points may be a real problem. If you've never accumulated any points over years of driving, then they may not be a problem.
The bump on your insurance rate is probably more of a concern. You will be paying for this violation for the next three years.
One thing attorneys are very good for in this case is pleading the violation down to a nonmoving violation. You'll still be paying a fine, but you won't be paying it for three more years.
No matter how you phrase it, it sounds like you really did commit a violation. Municipalities are having a lot of budget problems. One of the common ways to bridge the budget gaps is through traffic fines. That may not be the most ethically ideal solution, but that is the solution they are taking. Keep that in mind when going through this process.
Please post how this turns out - I'm sure lots of people here (including me) could use the advice.
To be fair, it would probably be easier to just appeal for defensive driving or deferred adjudication. This of course assumes that you are eligible for either. In either case the charge will be dropped if you comply with the requirements and if you take defensive driving you can actually receive a hefty discount on your car insurance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Even if the author is silenced, the performance is stopped, the story will not end.
Whether it's a comedy or a tragedy, if there is cheering, the story will continue on.
Just like the many lives.
For the us who are still in it and still in the journey, send warm blessings.
- We will continue to walk down this path until eternity.
1. say that you were going at or below the speed limit before the sign.
2. Say that you applied the brakes well before the sign and started to slow down in order to stop in a safe manner. Let them know you had 4 wheel drive active.
3. Say that in the processing of stopping you hit a sheet of ice and that propelled your car forward. (i have hit ice as well and it doesn't matter how far back your car is it will slide another 3 ft just for the heck of it.)
4. Given the conditions there is no way that the cop can reliably tell if the weight of the car was on the back wheels. which is not a condition for stopping at all. a full stop is considered no forward mommentum and the needle at 0. it has nothing to do with the weight of the car in one direction. usually about 1-2 seconds is considered a full stop.
so unless the cop was also using a radar gun on you he has no clue.
you can easily get this dismissed if you argue it correctly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Of course I pleaded not guilty and my court date is being determined within the next two weeks. What's your advice for my trial?
Get some evidence: ask for photos from a security camera, ask for their evidence of you driving through, etc.
( 0.0 )
=O ((U/R)) O=
(")(")
I'm an AI making Magic cards.
http://www.staalmedia.nl/nexus/#generate
If you "skidded through" the stop sign anyway, you STILL should stop after that.
All this business about when your wheels stopped etc sounds like a rationalization frankly. If you were really skidding with your brakes locked up, then describe it that way. From your description I have no idea when your skid really started, and what actually occurred. The judge is going to think the same.
I'd get my story straight: how far were you from the stop sign when you started braking? Did you simply slide on ice, lose control and slid thru the intersection? How far?
Not meaning to be accusatory... Just your characterization of what happened doesn't sound too clear at all and doesn't actually sound very sincere. More like a spin of events. Thought you should hear it since the judge will likely see it same as I do.
Sorry OP, but I have to agree here. According to law it's your responsibility to operate the vehicle according to the road conditions.
That, and "you can't fight City Hall". Unless you have lots of freetime and nothing else to emotionally invest in.
Kudos for trying though. I hope you win.
Modern
RBig RedR
GMean GreenG
WWW AlliesW
BGScavengeBG
WUVenser SilenceWU
EDH
RWAurelia 1 vs 1RW
GWURoonGWU
GWSaffiGW
Um, no. When a police officer writes a ticket, they also write your summons date to coorespond with their day to sit around in court and provide testimony for every citation they have written. The appeals are scheduled likewise.
If the officer is not there the day of for whatever reason, they'll postpone.
Besides, your talking about municipal court. They have provisions so that the system doesn't get bogged down. You will usually see a magistrate anyways, not a judge. A magistrate has the power to resolve municipal pleas by right of their own discresion and find you guilty. You would have to appeal which requires taking it to circuit court, tons of paperwork, money, and representation. What do you think, you'll get appointed a defender and a jury trial? lol.
Modern
RBig RedR
GMean GreenG
WWW AlliesW
BGScavengeBG
WUVenser SilenceWU
EDH
RWAurelia 1 vs 1RW
GWURoonGWU
GWSaffiGW
Also "rolling stop" is not a term you should use. That is what they call it when you slow down but don't stop. The court views this no differently than driving straight through a stop sign without even slowing. And if you drive according to weather conditions, you need to brake sooner in snow. Your defense won't work anyways.
If you ignore my above advice and do take this into a trial, look into whether or not traffic violations are a civil or criminal offense in your state. If they're a criminal offense you're in luck! The burden of proof in a criminal case, "beyond reasonable doubt" is much steeper on the prosecution than it is in a civil case "preponderance of evidence". In fact, if it's a civil offense, there's almost no chance for you to win. The officer's word is really all that's needed to convict you in such a case.
True. This does not, however, mean that the cop will actually be there. I've taken every speeding ticket I've received to court and I'd say about 1/3 of the time the cop hasn't shown up to court.
Not necessarily. I've had the cop not show up 4 times, and only once did the prosecution ask for a continuance. The other 3 times, the case was dismissed on the spot and I left court with no fines, no points on my license, and nothing reported to my insurance agency.
This is erroneous. Not only do police often not show up for civil citations, but in this particular case, I wasn't even issued a court date. My admission of guilt (or lack thereof) was to be mailed directly to the Fines Collection Center, and in the event that I should plead not guilty (I did), they would redirect it to the local prosecuting attorney. Unfortunately, the PA didn't receive my citation until last week, because it took the police office at least a month to report the citation to the FCC, and the FCC couldn't forward my not-guilty plea to the PA until they received the citation. However, you can and should believe that had I pleaded guilty and sent my money order to the FCC before the citation had been reported to them, there would be absolutely no problem at all. God bless the legal system.
Incorrect, if an officer does not appear in court or appears without citation the case is dismissed.
I've had this happen a couple of times (for various things like down tail lights and such).
If the officer shows up, then you get fined, don't fight it. You'll be blackballed. That's never good.
If you want to plead not guilty, pay an attorney to get it dropped to a non-moving violation. It will cost you a couple hundred bucks, but it's going to either way and this will not hurt your insurance as much (and likely a defensive driving course will be issued to remove any points, which is nice).
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)
After you lost traction, you slid through the stop sign. Did you THEN stop?
You skidded from what point before the stop sign to what point after the stop sign?
Did you EVER stop at any point before the blue & red flashers?
Because if the officer described it as a "rolling stop", rather than reckless driving (with you being in a skid and sliding through the stop sign), it sounds more like this:
You were driving about 20 or so, as you approached the stop sign, you didn't brake early enough for the conditions, and by the time your car reached the stop sign, you were still going too fast, and could sense the car sliding as you applied the brake further... the car slid for a split second, and you lifted off the brakes. (but instead of trying to pump the brakes and stop a foot or two later, you decided to go ahead and lift your foot off the brake, roll on through, figuring your "momentary slide" was technically enough to constitute a "stop" ).
If you had come to a COMPLETE STOP at any point, the cop would not call it a "rolling stop". To the outside observer, it just looks like you treating a stop sign like a flashing yellow.
You gently pushed on the brakes for a split second before you resumed driving on through. You can argue that you eased up on the brakes because you feared you'd lose control, but frankly it sounds like you were driving too fast for conditions, and should have braked earlier.
I would not make the "car was moving - tires were not" argument in court.
"Rolling stop" was my own phrasing, and I shouldn't have used it to avoid confusion. I was issued a citation for failing to stop, because the ice patch extended into the intersection, and by extension so did my car (a 1994 Explorer, to offer some perspective on size and weight). By the time my car stopped sliding (and came to a stop off the the ice), its front half was inside the intersection, and having already observed that it was empty, I deemed it more practical to ease off my brakes and continue on without allowing the weight of my car to settle on the back wheels (aka a "full stop"), which were still on the ice. I was able to stop the car, however briefly, once my front wheels left the ice because a) I was driving slow for conditions and b) my 4-wheel drive was engaged--again, for conditions.
The police officer tailed me from that point to the next intersection (50 yards further down at a stoplight) where I proceeded to make a right turn onto a highway, travel roughly another 100 yards to the next stoplight, and make a left. He then turned on his flashers about 20 yards after I completed the left turn (again, traveling on highway at this point after having exited campus at the first stoplight).
For your situation, the chances of you arguing your way out are slim. My brother's car slid into a ditch due to ice, and they wrote him a ticket because he should have adjusted his speed for the weather conditions. Your best bet is to tell them you want to fight it, and then reschedule your court date a little bit before. Generally police officers put all their ticket cases on a single day, and it isn't worth their time to show up to fight one ticket that got rescheduled. If the officer doesn't show, you're free. If he does, I'm pretty sure you could ask him to 'reduce' it. Then again, if you inconvenienced him with a reschedule, don't count on it. Just ask calm and polite, officers are normal people after all and they do sympathize. My brother had a ticket dropped when he explained that he had the opportunity to go to West Point, and a ticket would make that impossible.
Then again, what do I know? I've never gotten ticket, this is just stuff I've been told. Try to drive safer next time.
:EDH:
WR Gisela, Blade of Goldnight (HOLD/100) WR
WB Teysa, Orzhov Scion (HOLD/100) WB
If half your vehicle was in the intersection by the time you recovered your skid, that means the front of the vehicle got 4 1/2 feet into the intersection... ( 1994 explorer being 9 feet long ) the "stop line" for a stop sign is at least 4 feet from the intersection... And you should really be coming to almost stop well before you reach that point, creeping up to the stop sign.
So are you saying that you were approaching the stop sign at an appropriate rate of speed for the winter conditions and had slowed down to almost stop when you reached the stop line? But your car hit "black ice" and skidded 9 1/2 more feet into the intersection, at which point you decided... "well my tires momentarily stopped moving when I locked them up and skidded over 9 feet moving, so I guess I might as well hit the gas now" ? Then you drove through?
It sounds like you intended to slow down and barely stop as you rolled up (because it was early and nobody else around anyway), and maybe you hit a slippery spot and you had more speed than intended by the Ike you reached the stop sign, so you just went ahead and hiit the gas and slid on through after you slowed down at the stop sign.
I might be wrong, but if I were the judge, that is what I would believe happened.
To be more accurate, the front half of my vehicle was past the stop sign, not fully in the intersection. I don't know how to further clarify that reckless driving was not a cause here. As I've already stated, I was driving on a university campus between 15 and 20 mph with 4-wheel drive engaged, decelerating even further as I approached the stop sign, when my tires lost traction and proceeded to carry my car a little ways past it. At this point my car stopped (again, because the front wheels were carried off the ice slick, my 4-wheel drive was engaged, and I wasn't driving recklessly or too fast for conditions), and, being ahead of the stop sign and an obstruction in the (empty) intersection at this point, I deemed it safe and practical to proceed on through the intersection.
The police officer issued me a citation for failure to stop because a) I was past the stop sign before my car came to a halt and b) I did not halt long enough for the weight of my car to fall onto the back wheels (which were still on ice).
And why you put black ice in quotations as if it weren't a real occurrence and threat to drivers and pedestrians is beyond me.
As for the rest of it:
First you said that half the vehicle was in the intersection (implying it would would be safer to keep going than to come to a stop). Now it's just the front Half of your vehicle that slid past the stop sign.
So if your nose just slid past the stop sign but before the intersection, but you then you decided to NOT come to a complete stop...
... how is that any different than doing the same thing right before the stop sign?
The ONLY differences I see are that (1) the location that you paused/failedtostop was slightly past the stop sign instead of at the stop sign and (2) you had just slid meaning you should be more cautious, not less.
Either way, you rolled up to the stop sign, and performed a "rolling stop". You were perfectly capable of stopping. This action was the a stereotype of the classic "rollin stop". Sliding up to the stop sign means you are under the same obligation to come to a complete stop as you would be if you had been under control.
You came up to the stop sign, slowed down just enough (in your opinion) to safely see the intersection was clear, and then rolled on through without ever coming to a full stop. All the business about sliding and "black ice" is irrelevant. You CHOSE not to stop, when you had control and were capable of stopping.
You're not supposed to scan the intersection as you are still moving, hesitate for a split second at the stop sign, then roll on through (classic "rolling stop" ). You're supposed to scan the intersection as you approach, come to a complete stop, then from a stationary position, scan the intersection, then finally proceed.
If you'd come to a complete stop like you're supposed to, it's unlikely the cop would have ticketed you.
Good luck, I hope you can get off, but I don't think you are going to, unless you change your story again.
Another poster mentioned hiring an attorney. This is always good advice. The cost of an attorney will be more than the fine of the failure to stop violation, but you get the best chance of beating the ticket or, at worst, getting it plead down to a nonmoving violation.
The real costs of moving violations aren't the fines. They are realitvely negligible. I don't know how you drive or anything about your driving history. If you do drive a bit recklessly, or you already have some points on your record, then the points may be a real problem. If you've never accumulated any points over years of driving, then they may not be a problem.
The bump on your insurance rate is probably more of a concern. You will be paying for this violation for the next three years.
One thing attorneys are very good for in this case is pleading the violation down to a nonmoving violation. You'll still be paying a fine, but you won't be paying it for three more years.
No matter how you phrase it, it sounds like you really did commit a violation. Municipalities are having a lot of budget problems. One of the common ways to bridge the budget gaps is through traffic fines. That may not be the most ethically ideal solution, but that is the solution they are taking. Keep that in mind when going through this process.
Please post how this turns out - I'm sure lots of people here (including me) could use the advice.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=557874
Whether it's a comedy or a tragedy, if there is cheering, the story will continue on.
Just like the many lives.
For the us who are still in it and still in the journey, send warm blessings.
- We will continue to walk down this path until eternity.
1. say that you were going at or below the speed limit before the sign.
2. Say that you applied the brakes well before the sign and started to slow down in order to stop in a safe manner. Let them know you had 4 wheel drive active.
3. Say that in the processing of stopping you hit a sheet of ice and that propelled your car forward. (i have hit ice as well and it doesn't matter how far back your car is it will slide another 3 ft just for the heck of it.)
4. Given the conditions there is no way that the cop can reliably tell if the weight of the car was on the back wheels. which is not a condition for stopping at all. a full stop is considered no forward mommentum and the needle at 0. it has nothing to do with the weight of the car in one direction. usually about 1-2 seconds is considered a full stop.
so unless the cop was also using a radar gun on you he has no clue.
you can easily get this dismissed if you argue it correctly.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum