Ontariohighwaytrafficact.com

Hi all, this is my situation:

i was driving in a residential street (2 way) (50km limit), there is a small turn i'd say about 75 degrees to the right. as im approaching the turn i lost control of the vehicle. i believe someting happened with the front left tire because the car just drifted to the left and i had the steering wheel turned to the right, the vehicle when almost in a straight line to a parked vehicle in a driveway in one of the houses on the other side of the street. now, this happened so fast that i just tried to correct the vehicle direction without actually having time fro braking. the officer didnt give me a hard time at all, however she gave me a ticket for careless driving and told me right away that i had the option to plead guilty with an explanation which would get it down to just 2 demerit points, or to fight if in court, BUT that IN HER OPINION i tried to ""avoid"" another vehicle somehow and lost control of mine and i should "think" about that. i really dont know what to make out of that statement, i gave her my statement clearly saying there were no other vehicles, animals, or people on the road at the time of the accident.

i am really confused as of what to do, i dont think is fair for me to get any of the options given by the officer since i will either lose 6 point and my insurance company will cancel my policy. or lose 2 points ans see my insurance sky rocket. please give me some advice

Thanks

Whatever you were told by the cop, "Plead guilty with an explanation" is still "Plead guilty". You do that you will get a Careless on your record, 100%. Put up a fight and you might get better chances. If you do it right, just by standing up to fight and showing up, the prosecutor might give you a lower charge. So, before you do anything else, send in that ticket to fight it! Then give us some more details, we will help you deal with it one way or another.

What you have to do as well is to write down what had happened while the events of the day are still fresh in your memory. If possible, travel back to the scene and try to take some pictures - if the tire had truly busted, then you should observe some marks to indicate. Needless to say, take a digital camera, with date stamp. When you get the court date, you should (rather must) file for disclosure - whatever the officer wrote about your ticket, basically any and all evidence the crown has against you.

How old is your car? How old were the tires? Could it be that the steering wheel shaft broke? Could it be that the tire broke? How fast were you going? 50? 55? 60? 90?

This is a very serious charge. You might also want to consult a paralegal.

You might also want to consult a paralegal.

like he said

racer thank you for your answers.

first of all, i wasn't speeding, at most the vehicle was traveling at 40-50 when this happened. when the cop asked me for approx speed thats exaclty what i said. now, both front tires were busted when i got out of the car, im definately going to take pictures of the car/scene before it rains today. i have to check the steering shaft. thanks for that one. shoud i make an ammendment to the statement to the police with my now well writen story of what happened?. About plead guilty with an explanation, she said shes sure the prosecutor/peace officer will lower the charge to something else (she said what but i really didnt understand it, something about leave the road? and that charge is 2 demerit points rather than one)

thanks for your advice

Have you driven long enough to encounter understeer? That's what this sounds like - either through excessive speed or "black" ice.

If it is a mechanical failure, look at the tie rods and ball joints. The steering shaft pretty much never breaks.

thanks for the reply, i havent look closely at my car yet, it was towed away after the accident, today i will take pictures. the road was clear, no ice, or rain. so im leaning toward mechanical failure. we have had some pretty nasty roads here in (london,on) the last few weeks, lots of rain with deep puddles and big and deep pot holes all over the city. if there is mechanical failure, how can i follow this? should the insurance investigate or should i take pictures etc? thanks

and im absolutely sure there was no excessive speed, i had just turned from a main road and was accelrating at about 40-50kms tops. thanks

Do not even bother "Pleading guilty with explanation". It is still pleading guilty as charged. The judge might lower your fine, but you will still be charged with "Careless driving". Let someone else confirm this, I'm sure any regular here will tell you the exact same thing.

The fine is fairly low, at $110, but your insurance policy will likely double (or go up by over $1000 per year). To have the charge reduced you must attempt to fight it 1-st, then the prosecutor will do something. On the side note, have you had any tickets you were convicted of lately (in the past 3-5 years?). If not, then a 2-point charge ("Improper right turn"?) will likely increase your insurance premiums by about $200 per year, for the next 3-5 years. If you had other tickets, that might be a different story.

Just because the steering shaft is improbable problem does not mean that it is an impossible one. However, busted tire seems more reasonable.

Fighting this will cost you less than $600 with a paralegal, which is less than a single-year "Guilty as charged" insurance increase, and still less or about same as the mild insurance from a 2-point charge. As well you get a clean record as an added bonus. You can contact a paralegal through the form on the bottom of the page.

Thanks for the advice, i went to a paralegal here in my city. she says it doesnt look too bad to put up a fight. unfortunately the weather didnt help me at all today, it had started rainin already when i went out this morning, so most likely all marks will be gone by now (i hope not, i will go check back on that later) i do have one ticket in the last 3 years, is about to go off my record in 6 months, it was for speeding in a hw 25 kms over the limit, other than that i do have other speeding ticket but it is well over 3 years old and didnt appear on my insurance application last october. i went to look at the car, both front tires are busted, it ""looks"" like the steering shaft/ti rod end, are attached, so its likely the tire blew on me. wow its really impressive that after an accident like this every single detail is so important. i really appreciate if you guys keep on giving me your insights about this. i will let you know of the outcome. thanks

andrexxxo wrote:

i went to look at the car, both front tires are busted, it ""looks"" like the steering shaft/ti rod end, are attached, so its likely the tire blew on me.

I think you are confusing your terms. The outer tie rod end, which attaches to the steering knuckle at the wheel, is connected to the tie rod - which then connects to the inner tie rod end and the steering rack. The steering shaft/column is what you turn with the steering wheel, which gives input to the rack and power steering. On some cars you can't even see the steering shaft as it is buried below the vacuum booster and ABS lines. What you see when you look behind the wheel is just the tie rod. Did you check the ball joint along with the tie rod? Sometimes those will pop out but you will have months of clunking before that.

If you think the tire blew, you should find out why it blew. Not to help your case, but to prevent it from happening in the future. How old were the tires? What pressure were they set at? Winter tires, all-seasons, or summer tires?

If you want to just fight your ticket and be done with it, then feel free to ignore my posts.

Squishy wrote:

If you think the tire blew, you should find out why it blew. Not to help your case, but to prevent it from happening in the future. How old were the tires? What pressure were they set at? Winter tires, all-seasons, or summer tires?

To check the age of your tires....

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/ ... ?techid=11

of course if the tires being used incorrectly by low pressure, low tread depth and what was the rate of yaw are all factors.

Blown tire(s). Case dismissed.

The Crown will never be able to prove (conclusively) that the tires blew as a result of the accident. It's quite reasonable to believe the blown tires CAUSED the accident. Kids dropping spikes on the road could have caused the blowouts.

Bookm wrote:

Blown tire(s). Case dismissed..

Blown tire with a yaw = conviction

Yaw?

Oh.. you mean bent from hitting curb? Would require evidence to that effect. Get Disclosure.

Bookm wrote:

Yaw?

Oh.. you mean bent from hitting curb? Would require evidence to that effect. Get Disclosure.

Bent rim, metal into tire from car itself, (great evidence) plus the infamous "yaw"......still curious??

here ya go.....Tire yaw marks occur when a vehicle slides sideways while still moving forward.

hey guys...

ok so to answer some of your, questions.

1. tires were in good condition about 9/32seconds in both fronts (all seasons)

2. rims were in good condition, i had not hit anything recently (well at least the only thing you could actually hit in this city is pot holes everywhere)

3. front left tire is blown however the rim does not appear to be either bent, cracked, or broken in anyway,

i will go ahead tomorrow and check for the age of the tires but im pretty sure they are fairly new. thanks for the link

with all this questions and situations about the tire being a major factor im thinking i have a good chance because a. officer did not take photos of scene, the owner of the other car did, b. officer didnt look at the tires closely or asked me about them.

im definitely taken pictures tomorrow.

thank you all

9/32 is only about 30% tire wear, so the tires are likely an acceptable age unless your vehicle was stored for a while.

Going on the assumption that a tire failure led to the accident, do you remember where the tire blew? If the tire failed in the tread portion, you likely hit something that punctured it. Failures caused by underinflation will be on the sidewall, although that can be punctured as well.

Bear can correct me if I'm wrong, but take a look at the tire cords in the case of a sidewall failure. The tire cords are the threads embedded in the rubber. If some or all of the threads are cleanly cut, something punctured the tire. In the event of a failure due to underinflation, all the tire cords will be frayed from being pulled apart when the rubber failed. In cases of extreme heat, the rubber itself may be discoloured in a ring around the tire and the cords may have separated from the rubber.

As far as I know, there are legal no age limitations for tires in Ontario. There is only the 1.6 mm (2/32") tread depth limit.

(well at least the only thing you could actually hit in this city is pot holes everywhere)

Therefore.....Pothole hit weakens tire, it blows while you are turning and the cop blamed you. Sue the city..........after you beat the ticket.....

I'd sue the city regardless.

Even if the tire blowout was no fault of the city? Do you honestly think the city owes you anything in that case?

I thought that kind of thinking was limited to big-city America. "I'm inconvenienced, so someone has to pay me!"

Two thumbs down.

Squishy wrote:

9/32 is only about 30% tire wear, so the tires are likely an acceptable age unless your vehicle was stored for a while..

Do NOT trust the tread depth, check the date on the car....think it was CBC or W5 or similiar did research and a few new cars were being sent out with 2yr old tires, some tire dealers were actually putting on tires that were old....they were new but stored for the previous year(s).

Although nothing in law, I would not run with a tire over 5yrs old, but just my thought.

andrexxxo wrote:

hey guys...

with all this questions and situations about the tire being a major factor im thinking i have a good chance because a. officer did not take photos of scene, the owner of the other car did, b. officer didnt look at the tires closely or asked me about them.

In 12yrs I have never taken photos of a simple collision. If there is serious injury or death we call our ident unit out for that. I would not get too caught up about the tires, there might be more evidence than you are aware of.

That's true, and I should have added to double-check the date of manufacture anyways. Although it's rare to find tires more than a couple years old at a retailer. Under good storage conditions away from sunlight and ozone, tires will last in excess of 10 years. Those ideal storage conditions are rare (and a sign of a retailer you want to return to), but it is still not the same as deterioration in service. The service life of a tire is about five years; I think the Rubber Manufacturers Association recommends running tires no longer than seven years from the date of manufacture.

Proper storage during the winter months will allow you to extend the life as well. The Uniroyal tires on our Escort were manufactured in 1998 and were just retired this fall with 3/32 tread. We run winter tires for six to seven months out of the year and they were stored in the garage, covered, deflated, and away from fluorescent lighting. The rubber was still in great shape after a decade and they were grippy as heck.

For the average Joe who doesn't do a complete check of the car every oil change, five years from the date of manufacture is a good guideline. Even for a tire stored for half the year and examined regularly, I would run them no more than ten years as the danger of tread separation becomes very real and is not easily detected by a visual inspection.

Squishy wrote:

Even if the tire blowout was no fault of the city? Do you honestly think the city owes you anything in that case?

I thought that kind of thinking was limited to big-city America. "I'm inconvenienced, so someone has to pay me!"

Two thumbs down.

Learn to laugh Squishy

Jesus Christ, Internet rule #192: Jokes are to be followed by a smiley.

If that was a joke, then I apologize.

OHTA.ca rule #1.....anything that is posted by Reflections always includes a grain of salt...... Just like on the road..... Pay attention

Internet rule #192: Jokes are to be followed by a smiley.

I thought that was rule #12??

Err, typo? I have the special Dvorak keyboard where the 1 and the 9 are like the same key or something.

And my previous post was in response to Racer's post. I could see maybe seeking compensation if the pothole caused an accident and the street was in worse shape than others. Suing the city just for the hell of it is stupid.

Reflections wrote:

I thought that was rule #12??

Mipsrint?

racer wrote:

Reflections wrote:

I thought that was rule #12??

Mipsrint?

My comments were taken out of context