The Background

My 18-year-old son was involved in an accident near the end of August, 2003. From what I understand, he was driving with a friend on US52 (Sagamore Parkway) in Lafayette, IN, in the left lane, flowing with the traffic. Suddenly, two things happened:

1. Water from the sprinklers in the median hit him in the face. (He does wear glasses, and the water obscured his vision.)
2. The van in front of him braked, apparently at the traffic stoplight.

As he attempted to clear his vision and block the water from hitting his glasses, he realized that the van in front of him was stopping, and slammed on his brakes, skidding on the wet pavement. He steered left, away from the van, but the right front of his car hit the left rear bumper of the van, denting the corner of the bumper and apparently, scraping the fender behind the rear wheel. The right turn-signal on my son's car was broken and the right-front quarter-panel in front of the wheel was scraped.

Almost immediately following my son's car clearing the van, an SUV, who had been behind my son's car, ran into the van, denting the right side of the back door, bending the SUV's bumper to about 135 degrees in the middle, and damaging his grill. Apparently, he had not braked at all, but tried to steer around the van to the right.

Looking at pictures of the vehicles after the accident, it seems to me that my son had been braking hard - the damaged turn-signal of his car (an older Lincoln) is above the middle of the car; and the damage to the van's bumper caused by his hitting it was near the lower part of the van. The SUV's bumper, again, was bent in the middle, with a deep dent in the middle of the rear door of the van.

The woman driving the van complained of neck pain, but otherwise, no one was injured.

The policeman who came to the accident gave my son a ticket for $100 for "following too closely". The only only way he could have even come to that conclusion is that there was an accident at all... He hadn't been there to see the accident, so couldn't know the circumstances. I don't know if they guy in the SUV got any ticket at all.

My son is a student at Purdue on Honors scholarships. He got grants and honors scholarships to help pay for school. His grandfather helps with what they don't cover and his books and supplies with income from a rental property. He works part-time at a job that pays little more than minimum wage to help with living expenses, some of what the scholarships don't cover, and works "just enough" to keep his health insurance, which is cheaper and better than student health insurance. He can't work more because, as with most college students, his professors seem to think that theirs is the only class the students are taking and pile on homework. I can't help, because I have been out of a job since February, 2003, and am now on disability, a fixed income that barely covers my expenses. His mother doesn't make enough to help him, either. He is living with his grandparents in Lafayette to cut living expenses.

My Rant

Recently [09/2003], it came time for my son to pay the ticket or appear in court. Since he didn't feel he was at fault, he went to court to plead "not guilty". He was told to set a trial date with the clerk, and that if he lost, he would have to pay court fees ranging from $75 to $1000 on top of the ticket. His grandfather sent him to Purdue's legal aid, and they told him to pay the ticket. With his circumstances (last paragraph, Background), and of course, with the threat of another $1000 to pay, he paid the $100 ticket. Now he has that traffic "conviction" on his record, and since he was, by this conviction "at fault", his insurance will have to pay to fix the damage caused "by" him - both of which will cause him to pay higher insurance premiums.

Hmmm... Let's say I'm a person of authority (a cop). I arrive at an accident scene. A car is to the left of a van and an SUV is behind it. The car has, apparently, nicked the van and the SUV rammed it. Even being told what happened, I will give the kid in the car who had been following the van a ticket, because OBVIOUSLY he was "following too closely" to stop and there were no mitigating circumstances (like water in the face, on the road, caused by median sprinklers, not rain - we have to discount that, because the person who was hurt might sue the state, city or "sponsors" of the median.)

Now, the kid has the audacity to show up in court to plead "not guilty," since he believes the cause was the sprinklers and not because he was following too closely. Well, he's a student... He wouldn't be able to afford much more than the ticket, so let's threaten him with having to pay another $1000 on top of his ticket if the judge finds him guilty. [I hope the guy in the SUV got a ticket, too... He didn't even appear to have tried to avoid the accident.] WHAT A RACKET!

Personally, and I am not the only one, I believe that the city, the DOT, or whomever else is responsible for those median sprinklers should be held responsible for the accident, at least as far as my son is concerned. THEY should be paying for the damages caused by their spraying peoples' windshields and faces and obscuring the vision of drivers. I'm surprised there haven't been accidents with people missing the light because of this problem!

As for as the guy behind my son ... the one who actually rammed the van, I would say that it is obvious that HE was following too closely, and was, at best, also inattentive. I'm positive that if the sprinklers hadn't hit my son in the face, he would have seen the light change, himself, and slowed or stopped with the van. I'm also sure that my son's car would have been rammed by the SUV, possibly even harder than the van was. I hope THAT driver was given a $100 (or more) ticket, too!

by Bill Sanders © July 22, 2004 - email:
 

Send email to Bill Sanders ()
with questions or comments about this page or site.

This site, all text and graphics (unless otherwise noted) on it
were designed, developed and published by Bill Sanders of Orange Frog Productions.
It and it's CSS was validated and complies with both the: CSS and HTML 4.01 validators from W3C.
NOTE: All CSS validates except the "New Window Buttons" - Their CSS includes  some invalid code (ie: hacks)
and warnings for using transparent backgrounds when color foregrounds defined.
Copyright © 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 by Bill Sanders / Full site last modified: July 10, 2006