then get a good lawyer.

 

[QUOTE=Capster78]Yes you are! You're not even quoting or reading the law that you posted. Plus you left out the biggest part this time(I'll repost it for you in a sec) It doesn't say anywhere in there that you must come to a complete stop if there is traffic in the intersection. It says approaching on such highway within 500 feet of such point of "entrance".

I'll humor you for a sec. Do you know how far 500ft is?(I'm sure you do) If that's the case...... when(if) you see a vehicle approaching 500ft before the stop bars(or crosswalk because thats where the intersection actually begins"entrance"), all traffic has to "immediately stop" even though they have the green light.
Really?
By your logic.....Person #1 is driving 45mph(posted speed)to work on a 2 lane Rd as he approaches an intersection. He looks and see's that the light is green so he continues into the intersection but doesn't look both ways(stupid, but doesn't have to). Idiot #1 is driving on a 4 lane Rd that crosses the 2 lane Rd. Idiot #1 runs the red light and the 2 cars collide. Per you, #1 is at fault because he didn't see Idiot #1 approaching the intersection and run the red light.
That's rediculious! That's not what your code says or means.

[QUOTE=Capster78]You don't have to stop? What? That's not what your code says. And I quote "stop immediately". It doesn't say creep through, drive slow, etc, etc.

[QUOTE=Capster78]And again from the Traffic light code...."shall yield to other vehicles and pedestrians lawfully within the intersection". Read after your next quote down.
[QUOTE=Capster78]Those idiots are in violation themselves...

Sec. 21-256. Blocking intersections or marked crosswalks.
No operator of a vehicle shall enter an intersection or a marked crosswalk, unless there is sufficient space beyond such intersection or crosswalk, in the direction in which such vehicle is proceeding, to accommodate the vehicle without obstructing the passage of other vehicles or pedestrians, notwithstanding any traffic-control signal indication to proceed.

Now requote from traffic signal
...."shall yield to other vehicles and pedestrians lawfully within the intersection"
They(Your example of the stopped cars in the intersection of Jefferson) aren't lawfully there!
(Should you slow and stop because these idiots can't drive. Sure. It's called due regard for safety.)
Now on the other hand, this doesn't give you the right to see them and intentionally plow into them! If you intentionally see them and run full steam into them, now you've just upped the charges more than reckless!
But you are not at fault if you have a green, you don't see them and accidentally hit them. The key is accidentally not intentionally.

Now let me requote your code and what you left out which nulifies your case.

§ 46.2-863. Failure to yield right-of-way.

A person shall be guilty of reckless driving who fails to bring his vehicle to a stop immediately before entering a highway from a side road when there is traffic approaching on such highway within 500 feet of such point of entrance, unless (i) a "Yield Right-of-Way" sign is posted or (ii) where such sign is posted, fails, upon entering such highway, to yield the right-of-way to the driver of a vehicle approaching on such highway from either direction.

The bold say it all ^^^. You are guilty "unless" Now read past the "unless". Hello, remember traffic signal/sign that gives the right of way.

And we are basing this whole arguement off of an assumption that he ran the red light.
Yes and no. Yes that's the way it started out. No because the cases we are debating are actually different than his. She wasn't coming off a side street.
I don't call it an arguement...lol I call debating Law.
[QUOTE=Capster78]We finally agree if what Orange is telling us, is correct

 

Regaurdless, you can't tell me that someone can legally drive into the side of another vehicle because they are in the intersection and their light indicated they can lawfully enter the intersection. That is inviting insurance fraud. That is why I said the law can be at the interpretation of the officer.

 

We agree again. That's why I said the below.
The key is intent. If you see them and intentionally hit them, you could be charged with Reckless driving, Destruction of Private Property(Felony or Misdemeanor...depends on the amount$$ of damage) and maybe a few other things.

Example #1. You find a baseball in your yard and you know it belongs to your neighbor. You throw the ball towards his yard to return it to him. At that same time, your neighbor walks out and the ball hits him. You are not "criminally" responsible. There was no intent to assault him.

Example #2. You find a baseball in your yard and you know it belongs to your neighbor. This is the fifth time now and you're pissed. You see him in his yard and you throw the ball at him. The ball hits it's mark. You have now assaulted him because of your intent to hit him. You are criminally responsible.

Do you see the difference?

The same is true about the intersection.
You're driving and have a green light. You proceed into the intersection but you never see(or do see but it's to late) someone approach the intersection and run the light. An accident happens. You are protected because you have the right-of-way and there was no "intent".

Now you approach and you see a guy running the light(or stopped in the intersection). There is plenty of time to stop but you think, I'll fix this idiot and get some money out of it. Well if they can prove it, you are now criminally responsible because you intended to hit him.

We agree though. It doesn't give you the right to run into them but it will cover you, if you have the right-of-way and there was no criminal intent.

 

 

Dude you should Represent this dude in court

 

IM sayin man, he gets some sh!t across or explains it to ppl

 

lol.....Just trying to help.
I love reading/researching things. I've been thinking about going back to school(maybe Law School..lol)

The way I look at things is.....the only way to fight something is to understand what your fighting. Sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo but you need to understand what you're up against.
Hence, if you get a ticket for something, look up the law and try to understand it. It's not hard to understand but sometimes you need another person to read it and see if they read it the way you do.

Just remember, the laws(code) are interwoven with each other. Working off each other(like the examples in my other posts).
I've given some other hints on what your attorney and you should do. Don't want to requote it and make this any longer than it has been....lol

Good luck

 

thanks, seen my lawyer the other day and he said cuz im young and she is old that unless the witness doesnt show up im screwed. He said the worst im gonna get is $160 fine or go to driving school and the ticket will be dismissed after 6 months so i hope i get that. or better the witness not show up.

 

dont do that shit...then his friend is gonna have to start all over again. FUCK THAT.