L Brooks injured in traffic accident. [Pays no seatbelt ticket]

**Jimaz** · August-22-12, 03:25 PM

Just give everybody TCAS and turn everyone loose to go whenever and wherever they want. Just kidding.

On second thought, I wonder if that could ever become practical?

**kenp** · August-22-12, 03:32 PM

If you want to go were they turn everyone loose, try Tijuana.
Scary as hell

**Gannon** · August-22-12, 04:13 PM

Three Misdemeanor Counts.

Tell me they aren't a wee bit over-protective of their execudroid.

Fuck Oakland County. I hope L. Brook's pain meds don't work now.

**Cincinnati_Kid** · August-22-12, 04:32 PM

Right. Where's L Brook's and his driver's citations at for not wearing seat belts? Hard to believe none of the parties involved weren't wearing any. Wouldn't surprise me if none are forthcoming.

**RO_Resident** · August-22-12, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by narnarnar

Blinking yellow has meant "proceed with caution" for a few decades; why was the left-turn change made from blinking red, which is understood by all in MI to mean that green-lighted traffic is coming at you?

Having blinking yellow mean one thing at one traffic light and another and a different one is a terrible idea.

Because a flashing red light means you are to come to a complete stop then go when the intersection is clear. The mixed signal is in some situations, you come to a complete stop, except when trying to make a left turn. When making a left turn you go through the light as fast as you can before the signal turns solid red.

A blinking yellow means to proceed with caution.

Check out page 78 of What Every Driver Must Know.

**One Shot** · August-22-12, 11:02 PM

Anyone know why the license plates were removed from both cars?
Crock that Brooks and his crew weren't cited for seatbelts or anything else. But does anyone honestly think the head of the county would've been charged with anything? I am surprised they didn't nail the seatbelt charge to at least satisfy the public.

**Cincinnati_Kid** · August-23-12, 09:35 AM

Maybe it's because L Brooks isn't "above the law, he is the law".

**kenp** · August-23-12, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid

Right. Where's L Brook's and his driver's citations at for not wearing seat belts? Hard to believe none of the parties involved weren't wearing any. Wouldn't surprise me if none are forthcoming.

Well the guy paid dearly for not wearing one didnt he.
Probably cant even wipe himeself
Was LBP in the front or back seat. There is no law for not wearing one in the back seat is there? Maybe Im off base

**downtownguy** · August-23-12, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Gannon

Three Misdemeanor Counts.

Tell me they aren't a wee bit over-protective of their execudroid.

Fuck Oakland County. I hope L. Brook's pain meds don't work now.

It it typical that someone would be charged with misdemeanors for an accident like this? Wouldn't a careless or wreckless driving ticket do the trick?

And as for Patterson and his driver getting tickets for not wearing seatbelts... that seems like a no-brainer to me. Why is the police department hesitating?

**Gannon** · August-23-12, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by downtownguy

It it typical that someone would be charged with misdemeanors for an accident like this? Wouldn't a careless or wreckless driving ticket do the trick?

And as for Patterson and his driver getting tickets for not wearing seatbelts... that seems like a no-brainer to me. Why is the police department hesitating?

I know. Since there was already property and body damage, at worst he should've gotten a failure-to-yield...but since it was a relatively new form of light, which seems controversial, he shouldn't even get that. Seat belt ticket at worst.

It wasn't his car. He was driving a promo vehicle on some type of demo, I'd bet. Imagine his passenger's thoughts, seeing L. Brooks and his driver's shocked faces bumping into their windshield.

Only guy to wear a seatbelt, and that is what he gets to remember about the day. You know he saw it in slow-motion.

**downtownguy** · August-28-12, 08:06 AM

Auburn Hills Police report of the accident was released yesterday and three Detroit news organizations put different twists on the seat belt issue.

WWJ

It’s been reported many times Patterson was not wearing a seatbelt, but newly released reports said the belts were secured in their locks when the crash happened, leading investigators to believe they were in that position at the time of the crash.

That's the first article I read, and I wondered if that meant he was wearing it, or did someone buckle it after the accident to exonerate Patterson. But then the Freep description gives me the impression that "behind the seat" means it was intentionally done before the crash to keep the alarm off.

Freep

Patterson's seat belt was wrapped around the back of the seat and buckled. Authorities said Patterson, Cram and Prainito were not wearing seat belts. Prainito's passenger was buckled.

Again, does this imply he was sitting on a buckled belt to keep the alarm off? And if so, doesn't that warrant a ticket?

Detroit News

Reports show Patterson's seat belt was buckled but behind him

Unless Patterson popped out from under a buckled belt, then he was not wearing a seat belt. Why does WWJ talk about "newly released reports" as if to imply the first reports of not wearing a belt were erroneous? The belt was buckled, and he was not wearing it.

The other major revelation is that the black box in Patterson's vehicle shows it was going 54 in 45mph zone. OK, I'm not familiar with that intersection, and 9 over is not excessively fast, but it does mean the driver of the oncoming car has less time to make the turn. As Prainito said on the police report,

"All I know is a car came out of nowhere and we had impact..."

Yet the Detroit News article concludes with this statement from the police chief.

"This same information [[the black box) was known to the Prosecutor's Office on review of the accident," said Auburn Hills Deputy Police Chief Thomas Hardesty. "The speed has no effect on responsibility in the crash."

Can the police issue a ticket based on information from the black box? And if so, why haven't they?

Again, I don't know if 9mph over the speed limit is that significant, but at some point even if the other driver's signal directs him to yield to oncoming traffic, it does affect how much time he may think he has to safely turn in front of it.

It just seems that the police are trying to pin it all on this guy without sharing some responsibility with Patterson and his driver.

**Gannon** · August-28-12, 08:09 AM

ANY amount over the limit is significant, because by breaking the law you forfeit any 'right-of-way' you previously held.

**downtownguy** · August-28-12, 08:21 AM

Good point, but it that a legal principle?

**Gannon** · August-28-12, 08:38 AM

I'm trying to find what the Driver's Handbook says about it now, but I'm pretty sure of it. It was explained by an officer at an accident site many years ago...when I inquired about a potential 'failure-to-yield' citiation for someone who caused a collision.

**Detroitej72** · August-28-12, 08:49 AM

If this happened to anyone who lacks the cloud of Brooksie, they would have been ticketed. Once again, politicians seem to be above the law.

**Gannon** · August-28-12, 08:55 AM

Best I've found is a lawsuit out of Ohio.

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/do...-ohio-6022.pdf

Page four, paragraph two...but it is a .pdf that I cannot copy text from...

R.C. 4511.44 and R.C. 4511.01 provide the vehicle on the highway with an absolute right of way in proceeding uninterruptedly, qualified only by the requirement that the vehicle is proceeding in a lawful manner.

I'd say they were UNlawful by both speeding and engaging traffic without their seatbelts...and Fatterson should get an extra fine for going to such extraordinary efforts to avoid the warning devices within the vehicle.

Cheers

**Lostlegumes** · August-28-12, 02:07 PM

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/[[S[[cjq...me=mcl-257-649

[[5) The driver of a vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit a right of way which the driver might otherwise have under this section.

**Sandhouse** · August-30-12, 12:23 PM

Sec. 649[[5) is an interesting part of the Vehicle Code. I don't know if other states have something similar. I have been waiting for a case to come up in which someone attempts to use this little-known law to weasel out of responsibility for a traffic crash.

I don't know if there's been any cases in the past, but the pervasiveness of event recorders has lent new significance to this part of the Vehicle Code. It is now possible to commit a right-of-way violation, and then attempt to prove that the car that hit you when you pulled out into traffic forfeited its right of way due to "unlawful speed" citing the irrefutable evidence of the event recorder, obtained by subpoena.

There was a bill introduced about 4 years ago to repeal this section, but it went nowhere. Maybe if this case is high-profile enough, the bill will reappear.

**Gannon** · August-30-12, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Sandhouse

Sec. 649[[5) is an interesting part of the Vehicle Code. I don't know if other states have something similar. I have been waiting for a case to come up in which someone attempts to use this little-known law to weasel out of responsibility for a traffic crash.

I don't know if there's been any cases in the past, but the pervasiveness of event recorders has lent new significance to this part of the Vehicle Code. It is now possible to commit a right-of-way violation, and then attempt to prove that the car that hit you when you pulled out into traffic forfeited its right of way due to "unlawful speed" citing the irrefutable evidence of the event recorder, obtained by subpoena.

There was a bill introduced about 4 years ago to repeal this section, but it went nowhere. Maybe if this case is high-profile enough, the bill will reappear.

I think it should stay in for specifically that reason! Speed limits and lane usage are set on purpose...when a person exceeds the limit, it changes everything...at least due to the reduction in reaction time.

Exceed the limit, lose the right-of-way! Simple equation.

Cheers!

**Sandhouse** · August-31-12, 09:03 AM

"Exceed the limit, lose the right-of-way! Simple equation."

Unfortunately, the simple equation is not so simple.

It is easy to see how this provision got in the Vehicle Code. A person turning onto a road is entitled to a reasonable expectation that a car coming from some distance away is traveling at normal speeds. Someone doing twice the speed limit should properly forfeit the right of way. Any crash resulting from grossly exceeding the limit would probably provide enough evidence to establish fault.

But event recorders change things. The law uses the phrase, "unlawful speed" and the verb, "shall forfeit." Posted limits are frequently too low. The overwhelming majority of normal drivers travel at an unlawful [[but not unsafe) speeds on many roads, putting them at risk if a careless driver pulls in front of them and then subpoenas their event recorder. Even 1 mph over the limit is unlawful [[assuming the speed limit was legally set, which is a separate question). The verb "shall" may limit the discretion of a judge in this matter.

At the very least, the law needs to replace the phrase, "unlawful speed" with "unreasonable speed" or something similar.

I wonder if we shall see this played out in the L. Brooks case.

**Gannon** · September-18-12, 05:28 PM

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

http://www.freep.com/article/2012091...text|FRONTPAGE

L. Brooks gets and immediately pays his seatbelt ticket.

Now...heh...to get those 2nd, and 3rd, and 4th unto infinity offenses booked...since he should've learned his lesson.

No word on whether his driver gets a ticket yet, apparently he is still in the hospital.

**kenp** · September-19-12, 09:19 AM

with all the time on his hands [[and casts) he has been on Dyes snooping around. He figured he better get the ticket to make us all get off his back.
I heard the driver was in rough shape, hope he is doing better.

**DetroitPlanner** · September-19-12, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Gannon

No word on whether his driver gets a ticket yet, apparently he is still in the hospital.

He won't get a ticket. He is a [[retired) cop!

**Gannon** · September-19-12, 12:10 PM

You never know, I was surprised to see one written to Patterson. Although, $65 is much too light for someone SO PUBLIC who went to such lengths to turn off the alarm in the vehicle.

As for the retired cop? Professional drivers should always be held in much higher scrutiny. He should get a ticket for allowing any of his passengers to ride without a seatbelt, as well as speeding and not having HIS belt on. After he heals, of course.

It seems he got the brunt of the injury, and while I speak harshly about his earned penalties...I wish him a full recovery, and lessons learned. And a few tickets...unless the driver of the Jetta gets a reprieve on his, since we've established the stoplights at this intersection were non-standard. I think the guy who wore his seatbelt should get a say in all this...heh.

Cheers

**partyhardy** · September-19-12, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Gannon

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

http://www.freep.com/article/2012091...text|FRONTPAGE

L. Brooks gets and immediately pays his seatbelt ticket.

Now...heh...to get those 2nd, and 3rd, and 4th unto infinity offenses booked...since he should've learned his lesson.

No word on whether his driver gets a ticket yet, apparently he is still in the hospital.

I had assumed that the two cars were coming at each other and this was an oncoming accident and the one guy turned in front of L Brooks...but from the article you posted...

"The Chrysler, being driven at a high rate of speed by Patterson’s driver, retired Michigan State Police Trooper James Cram, was traveling eastbound through a green light on Walton Street. Prainito had a blinking yellow light on Southbound Opdyke."

So they were going in opposite directions? What kind of new traffic light is this? I've heard of a blinking yellow arrow when oncoming traffic has a green, but not when traffic has a green from the cross street.