Cal VC 22106 help

i recieved a ticket in the mail for 22106

after an officer took a accident report for my rear ending a person

my question is this: Since i was reasonable in my driving, i looked left
right, and rear view mirror and left right mirrors before i traveled
forward

and i didn't have neglence because i keep my eye on the car in front of
me as well as all objects near that car and in that eye sight

my question is this does not seem good enough as a defence because i
still had hit the person, to create doubt i could place blame on
possible oil in the road that i was unware of, but the accident report
neglects this, so i would have to argue that it was picked up and put on
my tires

or i could argue blame on the other driver that she was neglence in not
using her brake single long enough or with reasonable consideration for
her rear view mirror drivers

either way putting blame on her or oil seems to be an absolute, and if i
argue that it was possible then that would mean that i wouldl have to say
that i saw oil or more importantly that i thought she not given adquent
brake singal, this would be bad because it would leave out other probable
arugments such as cars in front of her were impeding traffic

if i go with that , that would mean that i did not have reasonable care


either way, it seems i am at fault for the accident because i hit her,
but i wonder why is there an absolute as to 22106 being the cause

it was stop and go traffic , and to create doubt i have to put blame on
others don't i

why can't there just be a lot of neglance such as the other driver the
other cars in front of her and road maintance

i will post the accidnet report and citation and letter police sent me,
later , as for now yu can read this case i am trying to figure out how to
fight


what does it mean , just because someone caused an accident and the
accident was their fault , that does not mean they were neglance or
unreasonable, how does that make sense, but whatever

From what you wrote............the accident was not there fault..... it was yours...... your in the wrong... sorry but you lose this one......


the accident being my fault is not a question

the question is wheather i commited vc 22106

which i did not

"Spockie Hendrick" <spockie@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93A670377ED2Cspockieearthlinknet@207.217.7 7.25... From what you wrote............the accident was not there fault..... it was yours...... your in the wrong... sorry but you lose this one...... the accident being my fault is not a question the question is wheather i commited vc 22106 which i did not

California Vehicle code #22106 states:

22106. No person shall start a vehicle stopped, standing, or parked
on a highway, nor shall any person back a vehicle on a highway until
such movement can be made with reasonable safety.


Apparently you did not meet the "reasonable safety" portion of the law
evidenced by the fact that you collided with another vehicle.

If you're looking here for justification for hitting another vehicle. Try
again.

While LEOs and the R.A.D. people argue and disagree on many points, I'm sure
we agree that all must exercise reasonable safety when driving.

Spockie Hendrick <spockie@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<Xns93A5F0F58ED65spockieearthlinknet@207.217.77.24>... Cal VC 22106 help i recieved a ticket in the mail for 22106 after an officer took a accident report for my rear ending a person my question is this: Since i was reasonable in my driving, i looked left right, and rear view mirror and left right mirrors before i traveled forward and i didn't have neglence because i keep my eye on the car in front of me as well as all objects near that car and in that eye sight my question is this does not seem good enough as a defence because i still had hit the person, to create doubt i could place blame on possible oil in the road that i was unware of, but the accident report neglects this, so i would have to argue that it was picked up and put on my tires or i could argue blame on the other driver that she was neglence in not using her brake single long enough or with reasonable consideration for her rear view mirror drivers either way putting blame on her or oil seems to be an absolute, and if i argue that it was possible then that would mean that i wouldl have to say that i saw oil or more importantly that i thought she not given adquent brake singal, this would be bad because it would leave out other probable arugments such as cars in front of her were impeding traffic if i go with that , that would mean that i did not have reasonable care either way, it seems i am at fault for the accident because i hit her, but i wonder why is there an absolute as to 22106 being the cause it was stop and go traffic , and to create doubt i have to put blame on others don't i why can't there just be a lot of neglance such as the other driver the other cars in front of her and road maintance i will post the accidnet report and citation and letter police sent me, later , as for now yu can read this case i am trying to figure out how to fight what does it mean , just because someone caused an accident and the accident was their fault , that does not mean they were neglance or unreasonable, how does that make sense, but whatever

It sounds like you have no case.

22106 is very straightforward. If you are entering traffic, you are
responsible for making sure the way is clear before you do so. If you
don't do so, and cause an accident, you're both responsible for the
accident and guilty under 22106. It's not unusual for a DA in
California to issue a ticket after investigation.

Road conditions (such as oil) aren't a defense: you should have taken
them into account in determining whether it was safe. By the way, if
you're thinking of claiming there was oil on the road when there
wasn't, that's perjury.

The other driver not showing brake lights isn't a defense: what if she
was driving a stick shift and engine braking or riding the clutch? You
can't rely on the other guy's brake lights.

If there were cars in front of her that impeded her way and forced her
to stop short, that's no defense either. She was driving defensively
enough to stop; you weren't.

Whether you were driving "reasonably" doesn't by itself determine
negligence or fault. More important is the question of who has the
duty to avoid an accident. When you're entering traffic, that's you.

--
Not a lawyer,

Chris Green

It sounds like you have no case. 22106 is very straightforward. If you are entering traffic, you are responsible for making sure the way is clear before you do so. If you don't do so, and cause an accident, you're both responsible for the accident and guilty under 22106. It's not unusual for a DA in California to issue a ticket after investigation.
tell me what evidence a DA would have. AN accident alone does not speak
as to how i actually drove that day unless you have a video tape of how i
drove before i had hit the car

there is an accident, that is fact

vc22106 violation is speculation not fact
Road conditions (such as oil) aren't a defense: you should have taken them into account in determining whether it was safe. By the way, if you're thinking of claiming there was oil on the road when there wasn't, that's perjury.
no, oil and ice have been argued in apealle cases successfully that those
things cannot reasonably be seen all the time
there was oil, that is the whole point, when cars drive on pavement over
a long period of time, there is oil build up
The other driver not showing brake lights isn't a defense: what if she was driving a stick shift and engine braking or riding the clutch? You can't rely on the other guy's brake lights.
there is a vehicle code that talks about sudden braking and how it is
against the law

If there were cars in front of her that impeded her way and forced her to stop short, that's no defense either. She was driving defensively enough to stop; you weren't.

immpending traffic to make a left hand turn or even slowing the flow of
traffic is against vehicle code(s)

I am not argues the fault of the accident, i am arguing that i used
reasonable safety and was not neglance, please explain why looking in all
directions and mirrors and waiting before preceeding is not reasonable,
you are saying you use more safety then what i just stated?

Whether you were driving "reasonably" doesn't by itself determine negligence or fault. More important is the question of who has the duty to avoid an accident. When you're entering traffic, that's you.
I am not arguing the fault of the accident, i am arguing that vc22106
says i have to drive wihout reasonable safety and with neglance, i did
neither

i doubt you can find any evidence to support otherwise unless you know
someone who saw my actions

I rear ended the person that is fact
me violating vc22106 is speculation

i followed all VCs and there was still an accident

are you people saying that following all VCs leads to 0 probablity
of accidents?

You rearended somebody. You obviously were either following too closely or
were not paying attention to road conditions. According to 22106, you have
violated the law. Common sense should tell you that you violated the law.
Get over it and pay the ticket.

"Spockie Hendrick" <spockie@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93A5F0F58ED65spockieearthlinknet@207.217.7 7.24... Cal VC 22106 help i recieved a ticket in the mail for 22106 after an officer took a accident report for my rear ending a person my question is this: Since i was reasonable in my driving, i looked left right, and rear view mirror and left right mirrors before i traveled forward and i didn't have neglence because i keep my eye on the car in front of me as well as all objects near that car and in that eye sight my question is this does not seem good enough as a defence because i still had hit the person, to create doubt i could place blame on possible oil in the road that i was unware of, but the accident report neglects this, so i would have to argue that it was picked up and put on my tires or i could argue blame on the other driver that she was neglence in not using her brake single long enough or with reasonable consideration for her rear view mirror drivers either way putting blame on her or oil seems to be an absolute, and if i argue that it was possible then that would mean that i wouldl have to say that i saw oil or more importantly that i thought she not given adquent brake singal, this would be bad because it would leave out other probable arugments such as cars in front of her were impeding traffic if i go with that , that would mean that i did not have reasonable care either way, it seems i am at fault for the accident because i hit her, but i wonder why is there an absolute as to 22106 being the cause it was stop and go traffic , and to create doubt i have to put blame on others don't i why can't there just be a lot of neglance such as the other driver the other cars in front of her and road maintance i will post the accidnet report and citation and letter police sent me, later , as for now yu can read this case i am trying to figure out how to fight what does it mean , just because someone caused an accident and the accident was their fault , that does not mean they were neglance or unreasonable, how does that make sense, but whatever

Whatever. Read the statute. Just expressing my opinion. If you don't like my
answer, then read through the other responses until you find one that says
"Gee, you're the victim. You were in no way, shape, or form at fault. You've
been violated." After you read one like that you'll feel much better about
your wrongdoing, and you can then guiltlessly discard all of the other
responses that tell you that you're at fault. Happy now?

"Spockie Hendrick" <spockie@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93A6B9387A1FBspockieearthlinknet@207.217.7 7.24... You rearended somebody. You obviously were either following too closely or were not paying attention to road conditions. According to 22106, you have violated the law. Common sense should tell you that you violated the law. Get over it and pay the ticket. obviously? are you trying to beg that you are right? i don't see evidence to say that i violated 22106, what evidence do you have? an accident does not mean there was a violation of the law it merely means there was an accident you have to connect the two please try to connect the two, while i sit here and watch you *try* some more