I think the problem is that you come across as being _extremely_ set in a mindset of "I did nothing wrong, everything is entirely the fault of the other driver and the police". And this doesn't mesh very well with your previous description of driving through corners one-handed. I think most of the negative comments that you are getting are based on the fact that you _should_ have learned from this incident that you should drive more defensively, so that you have a better chance to control your car even if something unforeseen happens. Because such things _do_ happen. You can drive through the same corner one-handed five thousand times an nothing happens, but it's still possible that on the five thousand and first time, a kid runs onto the road chasing a ball, and you kill it because the split second needed to put that coffee away took to long to react properly.

Very true, and I think that is the first time in this thread that I read something from you that doesn't fit into this "I did nothing wrong at all" mindset I described above.

Side question: Which evidence is there that there actually was a second car? Did it leave skid marks, did the policeman note those? Did anybody else see it, was this observation noted in any official document?

I'm asking because as soon as you tell any policeman or judge a story of "young guy spins out of a corner in a car he owned for just a week, claims that he had to evade another car which nobody else saw", you're going to have a tough time. They have heard such stories dozens of times, and in probably 90% of such cases there simply was no other car, but just one guy who overestimated his control over a new vehicle and made up the standard excuse that people tend to come up with in such a situation.

Then maybe next time I won't swerve out of the way. I'll let him hit me and get myself killed. Sound better? What the heck was I supposed to do? Yes, I should have had both hands on the wheel, but I am not going to let you tell me that I am not respecting another persons life because I was holding coffee. This was not a 90 Degree turn, nor was there anything I could do to avoid this person because of his speed besides swerve around him. But I'll tell you what, I'll let myself get killed next time.

Again, this was not a corner, it was a turn, but not a sharp one. It is very deceiving because it is at the top of a small hill, with a small blind spot in it. YES, I get that I have to be more careful, and NO, I don't drink coffee anymore while I am in a moving car, I may take some with me, but will sip at it while moving slowly on a straightaway, or while stopped, that's it.

I left Skid Marks and I don't even think the other car noticed I was there. I have not seen any official document other than the summons that simply tells me I am being fined.

Also, Side note: The person who owned the tree I hit told me that they have never seen an accident that clean there before, and that most people end up in far worse shape than me. I sideswiped a tree, which was on the same side of the road as I was, where most people ended up past the tree into a stream on the other side of the field. And that that is very common to them. Several times a year that happens, and they have complained to the state with no result. In other words, this is a deceptive turn that gets many locals. Not just me. So I am not a one-off case here, and more needs to be done than just giving me a ticket and adding, quite literally, insult to injury.

It does, the problem is, it's not that easy to harm only yourself in such accident. Deliberately driving into another car or deliberately NOT trying to avoide a collision is a felony, btw. and you would end up in jail if you survived.

I still hope you're joking.

That was very much sarcasm. My point was this: I avoided one accident and caused another, less damaging one. I had to make a choice. Let him hit me or swerve out of the way. I swerved, and ended up in a field after hitting a tree. Yes, I still caused an accident, but NOT because of being careless. If they want to give me a fine, alright, but not for careless driving, which is defined as "Operated a vehicle in careless disregard for the safety of persons or property." That is the exact wording used on the Traffic Citation that I received with the Citation (I realized after I said there was no official document that this was separate from the summons, but included as "page 2")

I am very irritated at the fact that I got this particular ticket. If I genuinely broke a law, I am more than willing to pay the due costs, but I do not feel that I broke any laws. And furthermore, the only damage that was caused, other than to my own property was to a tree that I peeled some bark off of. And the owner of said tree declined to even look at it. They told me they were not worried about the tree, or any damage to it, and that they were more concerned about me.

If I had damaged state property in my accident, I would understand getting a ticket for the damage done, but I genuinely feel that this is just the state trying to extort money from me.

You have every right to fight for what you think is right :-) I don't think you have much of a chance, though...

I don't think I am going to win, but I'll tell you what: I am going to go to the accident site today and take as many pictures as I can. I am gonna upload them online and post a link in a post here and explain in photos exactly what happened. That way I can get exactly how to explain it down, and I will not be stumbling over words in court. Plus, pictures will help to explain to you all exactly what I mean better than I have thus far.

In your case, I wouldn't do it. Nobody can tell you if the ticket is justified or not (we haven't seen the situation or the place where it happened), but: That's proably where your ticket comes from. To me it sounds like you went back on the road too fast and therefore lost control over your car. If the judge thinks the same...

I think the ticket is not for avoiding a collision, but for going back onto the street under unsafe conditions. You can't spin out that bad (crashing into a tree and wrecking your car) if you're slowing down your car and get back onto the road at 15 or 20 mph (=slow). There's nothing wrong with slowing down your car in the dirt (if there's enough run-off) and steering back onto the street slowly. Just hold the steering wheel tight and straight until you slowed down enough. Then go back onto the street with minimal movement on the steering wheel and very little (or even without) acceleration. That's a safe way to do this. The way you did it (I don't know how you did it) was obviously unsafe. But such things can happen when you're shocked and not a very experienced driver.

Nevertheless, I think it is a strange thing to fine someone who avoided a collision and lost control of his car in succession. Maybe it's justified if you follow the law word by word, but normally it's not something the cops will do.

Well, as I stated in my last post, I will be posting pictures of the accident site, but by the time I was back on the road, I was going down the hill, and there was no run-off, to speak of, the tree was less than 3 feet from the edge of the road. And, on the side of the road, where the tree is, is a steep hill that is probably 4-6 feet high, and is basically a wall, which, ironically, ends immediately after that tree.

Also, while I was not speeding, I was going just under the speed limit (40 MPH), with my foot on the brake as I went into the turn.

I am 22 and I have been driving since I was 18, but I do not at all consider myself a great driver. I can do fine in good conditions, which, up to the accident, it was. But in rain or snow, I get super paranoid and nervous.

And, I will admit, I was not used to driving the car I was in, because I had been driving a 97 Dodge Ram 1500, until I had to finally take it off the road, and I had switched to that car, which was a tiny 99 Ford Escort. That in itself probably played a large part in it because those two vehicles handled differently, and I had literally only owned that car for 7 days.

But I am still not guilty of driving carelessly. I just did not handle the situation properly. That does not make me careless.

UPDATE:

I was found Guilty, and fined $138 plus 3 points were assigned to my license.

I could have filed an appeal, but I simply couldn't make the time for it, so I am sucking it up and paying it off and dealing with it, but I absolutely disagree with the decision. The Judge's words were: "Based on your lack of proof that there was an oncoming car..." and "Based on the officers description of what he believes happened, I have no choice but to find you guilty."

In other words, because I could not prove my innocence, I am guilty.

I live in PA, USA. That means that the Constitution should fight for my innocence until I am found guilty. I can't believe the system here is so corrupted.

Yep, life in MERICA. You are guilty until you can prove your innocence. The constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper nowadays. This conversation reminds me of this scene from the first Pirates movie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6kgS_AwuH0

I take it the "Hands on the wheel at all times no matter what" crowd don't drive manuals.

That perfectly sums up what happened.
That's different! Don't ask me how, but it must be. Such an obvious aspect of driving and all that...

This doesn't mean the system is corrupt. I believe the laws in Canada are very similar to American laws in many respects, and this is probably one of them. The burden of proof is on you, since you're the one that was in an accident and no one else can corroborate your story about the other car. So you have to prove the circumstances of the accident if it means avoiding a penalty of law. Sucks, but that's the way it is. Too bad you got hit with the full penalty though. Would have been nice if at least they'd have dropped the points against you.

LOL