Failure to maintain one lane

>>http://tigerlou.myphotoalbum.com
>
> The old cliche is that a picture is worth a thousand words. However,
> in this case, I think I'd rather have the words as I can't make heads
> or tails of the picture.
>
> Your kitten is darn cute, however.
>
>
> If your car left the lane, then the cop was within his rights to
> ticket you. What really matters is whether or not you are convicted of
> the offense.
>

The picture is pretty clear to me. OP was driving blue toyota "north" (if
up is north) in right lane of multi-lane road. Another vehicle attempted to
enter road from the right (headed west, but turning north) and cross several
lanes of traffic. Unfortunately, traffic wasn't clear as he cut right in
front of the OP's car. When the OP's car predictably smacked hard into the
vehicle that failed to yield the right of way, the airbags deployed in the
blue toyota, and the blue toyota was pushed into other traffic lanes by
forward momentum combined with the impact of colliding with a vehicle which
shouldn't have been there. The ticket given to the OP was a crock of ****,
to put it bluntly.

The driver of the vehicle which failed to yield should be 100% responsible
for damage to all vehicles involved. -Dave

"Lynda" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Dave,
>
> Your assumption is very close to accurate. Both the other driver and I
> have State Farm insurance. After I called the claims office Friday
> night I recieved a call from a different person from state farm,
>
> "The other party claims that you rear-ended them. Do you agree?"
> "No."
> "Then would you like to dispute the claim?"
> "Yes."
>
> Then he asked me if I had rental coverage I said yes and then that was
> the end of the phone conversation. Mind you this was two hours after
> the wreck so I was still a mess and didn't even think about asking what
> the report said. By the time I had my head on straight the claims
> office was already closed for the weekend.
>
> Also Dave, I think it's funny how you bring up the age difference.


Lynda - Don't take this the wrong way, but the driver who is 100% at fault
in this incident is counting on YOUR age and/or inexperience to try to
weasel his way out of responsibility for this incident. In most "accidents"
where a vehicle is rear-ended, the driver in the vehicle with the damage in
the REAR would be held totally blameless. Not all the time, but 99.99% of
the time. If you claim that you were rear-ended, then it is up to the other
driver (YOU, in this case) to prove that he/she was not responsible for the
incident. That's because it is assumed that the vehicle with damage in the
FRONT was driven by the driver who had the last best opportunity to avoid
the collision. Or relating this to your particular incident . . . if this
really was a rear-end accident, YOU would be 100% at fault, in the eyes of
your insurance company. Regardless of fault, your insurance company is
going to pay for damage to all vehicles (didn't I read that the other driver
had the same insurance company?). The only difference is, if YOU are found
to be AT FAULT, then YOUR insrance premiums go way up for several years,
because you have an "at fault" accident on your record at the insurance
company.

When you were asked if you would like to dispute the claim (by another
driver that you rear-ended his vehicle), you shouldn't have simply answered
"YES". You should have immediately asserted that this was not a rear-end
collision, and that you collided with a vehicle that failed to yield the
right of way to you while the other vehicle was attempting to enter the road
that you were driving on.

Ask your insurance company to fax you an accident report to fill out. The
accident report should have several blank diagrams on it where you
illustrate EXACTLY what happened. In one diagram, you should show the
positions of various vehicles BEFORE the collision. On that one, be sure to
show that the vehicle you collided with was NOT on the same road that you
were on. That will make it perfectly clear to your insurance company that
this was not a rear-end accident. You can only rear-end vehicles that are
on the same road that you are on. If you hit a vehicle that was NOT on the
same road as you prior to the collision, then a right of way violation has
happened, somehow.

You know what happened, but your insurance company needs to know. The other
driver is trying to screw you, after-the-fact, by claiming that he was
rear-ended. He knows that by claiming "I was rear-ended", he is likely to
avoid responsibility (and thousands of dollars in increased insurance
premiums) by having the insurance company rule that the collision was YOUR
fault. Don't let him get away with that crap. This was NOT a rear-end
collision, it was a failure to yield to through traffic when legally
required to do so. -Dave

>>
>>The picture is pretty clear to me.
>
> That puts you in the distinct minority. Even Jaybird, a cop who sees
> traffic collision reports every day, couldn't make sense of the
> diagram.
>

I think that says more about jaybird than it says about me. Anyone looking
at the picture (especially an experienced traffic cop) should be able to
clearly see that the OP was a victim of another driver who failed to yield
the right of way when attempting to enter the road that the OP was
n. -Dave

Hi Lynda,
My heart goes out to you.
I was in an accident when I was about your age.
I knew nothing about lawyers. I was trying to handle everything on my
own. One day I was talking to someone about my story and they gave me a
name of a lawyer. (I was rearended by a taxi).
Until then, I had been given the run around and basically blown off.
Probably due to my age.
I either suggest you mention that you have a lawyer or actually get
one. Not in the yellow pages or via a commercial but really try to find
some testimonials. Others who had fast action and good results. It was
truly a relief handing over everything to a lawyer. There are some
ambulance chasing ones out there but there are some that can also take
a lot of the burden off of you. I just remember feeling a huge relief
walking out of that office and a few months later glad I had taken the
advice because I got a nice check when it was all over.
Prayers to you~
Diane

>> I think that says more about jaybird than it says about me. Anyone
>> looking
>> at the picture (especially an experienced traffic cop) should be able to
>> clearly see that the OP was a victim of another driver who failed to
>> yield
>> the right of way when attempting to enter the road that the OP was
>> n. -Dave
>
> I would not draw such strong conclusions based on the picture presented
> by one of the parties in the collision. Every story has at least two
> sides.
>

Yes, every story has at least two sides. But to assign any fault at all to
the OP, you'd have to assume that the OP lied about something very basic
related to this incident. The basics clearly point to the OP being 0% at
fault here. If we take as fact that the other vehicle that the OP first
collided with was not on the same road that the OP was on (prior to the
collision) and was trying to enter the road that the OP was on, then the OP
is 0% at fault in this situation, and it doesn't matter what "the other
side" has to say about the matter. You can't enter a road -legally- and
have a collision, unless some other driver is thoroughly reckless in their
behavior behind the wheel. Given that the worst the OP was originally
worried about was a bull**** ticket that she didn't understand, I think it's
safe to assume that the OP was not driving recklessly. Otherwise, the OP
would have read something like . . . "omigod, I was doing 200MPH in a 20MPH
zone when someone pulled out in front of me and I creamed them. Why was I
arrested?" (for one example) -Dave

In article .com>,
says...
>I was recently in an accident and I was given a ticket with the label
>"failure to maintain one lane."
>Is anyone clear on what the rules and regulations are for this kind of
>ticket?

On the ticket there will be number that corresponds to the law you allegedly
broke. With this information go to your local library and ask them to help you
look up the law. You can then see if you actually broke that law.
-----------------
Alex

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:16:03 -0500, "Mike T." >
> wrote:
>
>>>>http://tigerlou.myphotoalbum.com
>>>
>>> The old cliche is that a picture is worth a thousand words. However,
>>> in this case, I think I'd rather have the words as I can't make heads
>>> or tails of the picture.
>>>
>>> Your kitten is darn cute, however.
>>
>>The picture is pretty clear to me.
>
> That puts you in the distinct minority. Even Jaybird, a cop who sees
> traffic collision reports every day, couldn't make sense of the
> diagram.

Yeah, I interpreted it to mean that the vehicle was turning from the center
turning lane into a private drive, or similar opening. After cutting
through the inside and middle lanes, he didn't make it through the outside
lane before getting smacked by the OP. Like I said, if we had a diagram
from the actual report it would be a lot easier to sort this all out.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"Mike T." > wrote in message
reenews.net...
>
>>> I think that says more about jaybird than it says about me. Anyone
>>> looking
>>> at the picture (especially an experienced traffic cop) should be able to
>>> clearly see that the OP was a victim of another driver who failed to
>>> yield
>>> the right of way when attempting to enter the road that the OP was
>>> n. -Dave
>>
>> I would not draw such strong conclusions based on the picture presented
>> by one of the parties in the collision. Every story has at least two
>> sides.
>>
>
> Yes, every story has at least two sides. But to assign any fault at all
> to the OP, you'd have to assume that the OP lied about something very
> basic related to this incident. The basics clearly point to the OP being
> 0% at fault here. If we take as fact that the other vehicle that the OP
> first collided with was not on the same road that the OP was on (prior to
> the collision) and was trying to enter the road that the OP was on, then
> the OP is 0% at fault in this situation, and it doesn't matter what "the
> other side" has to say about the matter. You can't enter a road -legally-
> and have a collision, unless some other driver is thoroughly reckless in
> their behavior behind the wheel. Given that the worst the OP was
> originally worried about was a bull**** ticket that she didn't understand,
> I think it's safe to assume that the OP was not driving recklessly.
> Otherwise, the OP would have read something like . . . "omigod, I was
> doing 200MPH in a 20MPH zone when someone pulled out in front of me and I
> creamed them. Why was I arrested?" (for one example) -Dave

Well, that's why we're having such a hard time with this. The main reason,
like George said, is that we only have one side of this story. There are
still the sides of the other driver, and the outcome of the investigation by
the cop who was there. From her version of the story I agree with you that
it makes no sense why she was given a citation because traffic entering from
a minor roadway, or turning from a turn lane must yield to a vehicle already
established in the lane of a major roadway. I have to believe there is more
to the story because of the outcome.

We need the accident report.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

jaybird wrote:
> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:16:03 -0500, "Mike T." >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>>http://tigerlou.myphotoalbum.com
> >>>
> >>> The old cliche is that a picture is worth a thousand words. However,
> >>> in this case, I think I'd rather have the words as I can't make heads
> >>> or tails of the picture.
> >>>
> >>> Your kitten is darn cute, however.
> >>
> >>The picture is pretty clear to me.
> >
> > That puts you in the distinct minority. Even Jaybird, a cop who sees
> > traffic collision reports every day, couldn't make sense of the
> > diagram.
>
> Yeah, I interpreted it to mean that the vehicle was turning from the center
> turning lane into a private drive, or similar opening. After cutting
> through the inside and middle lanes, he didn't make it through the outside
> lane before getting smacked by the OP. Like I said, if we had a diagram
> from the actual report it would be a lot easier to sort this all out.

Look at the diagram again, there's arrows to show they pulled out of
the shopping center in front of her, and got hit in the rear and spun
toward the curb.

Her vehicle was moving forward in #3, and upon impact appears to have
gone into #2.

I'd assume, as the caption says, that the driver saw someone in #2 wave
them through, saw the gap in #1, and like many bad drivers, assumed
that meant every lane was waving him through and the other driver
failed to even look for traffic coming in #3.

I'm still not sure what the BMW has to do with anything?

Dave

> Well, that's why we're having such a hard time with this. The main
> reason, like George said, is that we only have one side of this story.
> There are still the sides of the other driver, and the outcome of the
> investigation by the cop who was there. From her version of the story I
> agree with you that it makes no sense why she was given a citation because
> traffic entering from a minor roadway, or turning from a turn lane must
> yield to a vehicle already established in the lane of a major roadway. I
> have to believe there is more to the story because of the outcome.
>
> We need the accident report.
>
> --
> ---
> jaybird

I don't believe the accident report would help, at all. Remember, the
accident report is being written by the moron who ticketed the OP for
failure to maintain one lane, after some other bozo KNOCKED HER OUT OF HER
LANE. If anything, said "accident report" would probably contain more
inaccurate bull****. Police are not perfect, and the officer on this scene
was (at best) having a really bad day. -Dave