Fight Careless Driving Charge?

[gemstone]

Well thanks for all the replys. I just read the email from Mike to my son. I wrote about Mike from what I knew through second hand stories. I was off on several parts. I'm sorry about that but hope opinions will still be given on the updated account.


Mike's email:

I tried to pass a car that was doing 65km. When the truck started shaking I knew I couldn't pass him so I slowed down to pull back into my lane. After I was in my lane the car I had tried to pass slammed on his brakes for no reason I could see. I put on my brakes and the truck started turning a little towards the center line but had stopped turning. The truck hit the bump in the road from the culvert and flipped. I was not moving very fast when I hit the bump and would have stopped soon easily without any damage. There was no cars close behind me. I never came close to hitting the back end of the car even when I flipped. The car coming from the other direction was not part of anything but had just stopped after I flipped. It was not the reason I pulled back into my lane. The ticket says careless driving. The box where it says witness is checked - none -yet I saw both cars questioned and notes were taken. There is - no car unsafe to drive on the ticket. It was just a comment made by a cop who was there but did not write the ticket. I don't think I even said anything about that to him but I was kinda in a blur at the time.






On Christmas eve, a 19 year old neighbour (Mike) rolled his truck and was charged with careless driving. He is going to fight it and asked my husband and son to be witnesses since they have driven the truck and can verify that the truck is old (1985) and when it goes over 75, it begins to shake. If you try to go over 80, it will stall back down to below 80. In fact, several neighbours can verify this about the truck. We all borrow it for dump, building supplies and furnitiure runs.


His story:

Coming home from Xmas shopping. Car ahead is only doing 65. Mike decides to pass it. Pull along side of car but staying even with car. Truck starts to shake so apparent that the car has sped up to >75 and no longer passable in the truck so Mike slows down by just taking his foot off the gas, no brake. Road ahead is clear so no rush to get back into proper lane. Mike is still staying even with car doing only about 70 so apparently that the car has also slowed down. Mike assumes that the car is now allowing him to pass so he speeds up again. Road is still clear. Again truck starts shaking and he is unable to pass because car has sped up to >75 again. Now a car is coming from opposite direction. Mike applies the brakes this time to pull back into proper lane quickly. He hits a raised culvert in the road and flips the truck. All cars pull over and police and firemen come. Mike is fine but shaken. Firemen say if he had not tried to get back in lane at that exact location (raised culvert), he would probably not have flipped.

Police will not listen to Mike's story. Other driver said he was doing 80 the whole time and that Mike should not have tried to pass. Mike is charged with careless driving and fined $400.00. Officer will not allow Mike to call around for best price for tow. Officer calls a company that charged $800.00 (called around later and he should have only paid $280.00). Mike also loses $180.00 worth of Xmas presents and cell phone which were shattered. And obviously the loss of the truck which the officer claims should not even have been driven because it was unsafe even though it had passed safety test only 1 1/2 years ago and passed emission tests.

It just seems that the officer saw a 19 year old and decided he was guilty. My husband and son verify that this truck cannot do over 80 so there is no way Mike would try and pass a car doing 80. Even trying to pass a car doing 70 would be pushing it. The other driver was definately lying about doing 80 the whole time. If he was lying about that, what else could he be lying about?
I don't want to think about what this will do to his insurance rates and the incident has already cost him over $1500. He may as well give up driving while he is in school the next 3 years. There is no way he could earn enough during the summer to pay for insurance and school which means getting to and from work will be extremely hard for him without a car when you live in the country.

I would like to believe that this was not intentional by the other driver but a case of both drivers deciding to do the same thing at the same time, like when you meet someone in a hall and both go left and right to get around each other. If it wasn't for the culvert, the police would not have been involved.

He has had no other tickets or accidents. It is Mike's word against the other driver. I looked at the site posted here that has the different offences and there is one "failure to assist in passing" which is exactly what the other driver committed according to Mike's story. Is this a lost cause or does anyone think this is worth the fight?

[ChrisBa]

They will most likely say that the vehicle should not be driven if thats the case and to get it fixed

[CompWizrd]

Have to agree that this car should not have been on the road as it was dangerously unsafe. "Passing a safety" means nothing, especially with that time frame, and emissions has nothing to do with safety.

I had to drive my mother's Aries K-Car that took 29 seconds to get to 100.. it should have been taken off the road years before that.. and this truck sounds far more unsafe.

[gemstone]

The accident did not occur because of the truck.

The truck was not unsafe in any anyway. I assume the officer said this because of the age. It was not falling apart or any major rust on it. It never failed to start even in winter. Brakes, tires, etc. were all in good shape. That truck was around cops all summer at the ball diamonds and none ever said it was unsafe to drive and get it off the road. Not even any warnings. It just couldn't do over 80.

[TenzoR]

sure fight it, can't hurt anyways

[weedb0y]

Its easier to fight such a big charge becuase it takes more to prove that he was driving 'CARELESSLY'. I had my careless charge from my first and only accident when I was around that age dropped within seconds when they couldn't provide enough evidence.

[docvteg]

Since the 19 year old Mike is familiar with the truck, he should not have pushed it to it's limit of 75 km/hr.

If I was driving a sh*tbox (no offence intended), I would defiinitely not push it to the limit.

About the careles driving ticket, even if he is wrong, he should still fight it. Gettting convicted or not doesn't matter if he has not learned from this.

[kcorscadden]

Mike will more than likely NOT win for the following reasons:

- Mike got scared when the truck began to rattle and chickened out.
- He was in the passing lane for FAR too long... If you can't pass the other car, get out of their regardless of if it is clear.
- Mike flipped his vehicle because he was in a hurry to get back over (or whatever reason) because of the oncoming vehicle.

Sure the other driver supposed lied about doing 80, but PROVE IT !!!! Unless he has witnesses that can verify his story, its Mike vs the other driver's word. Since Mike flipped his vehicle, the charge will more than likely stick as it only Mike's truck that was involved in the flip. Usually, you will get charged with careless driving if you are the only one involved in an accident.

I hate to say it, but Mike is pretty much fubar'd here.

[james-007]

It doesn't hurt to fight. About 15 years ago I was in an accident. Lady decided to pull a left turn in front of me while I going through the intersection. I crashed into her and to keep the traffic moving we pull in a parking lot and called the cops. 1/2 an hour later cop shows up and give her a ticket for failing to yield on left turn and give me one for speeding. Excuse me for speeding we been in the parking lot for last 1/2 an hour and you saw me speeding? Anyways I disputed the ticket.
6 months later my court date came and I was waiting outside the court room when the same cop told me I could leave because he was withdrawing his ticket due to lack of evidence. DAM right lack of evidence, i said. Cop are not the most innocent people, from time to time they will try to see if they can get away with thing.

Fight it all the way.

[gemstone]

"Mike will more than likely NOT win for the following reasons:

- Mike got scared when the truck began to rattle and chickened out."

He has been driving this truck for a couple of years. I highly doubt he "chickened out". The rattling just alerted him quicker that the other car had sped up and was now unpassable so he slowed to move back into his lane.


"- He was in the passing lane for FAR too long... If you can't pass the other car, get out of their regardless of if it is clear."

It was not unsafe because it was still a passing zone and the way was clear. He was going to give up the passing until the other car appeared to slow to allow him to pass. It would be no different if he had tried to pass again after pulling back into his lane.


"- Mike flipped his vehicle because he was in a hurry to get back over (or whatever reason) because of the oncoming vehicle."

No, according to the firemen he flipped because of the raised culvert in the road. They are not "experts" but have seen enough accidents to give a informed conclusion. Just bad timing.


"Sure the other driver supposed lied about doing 80, but PROVE IT !!!! Unless he has witnesses that can verify his story, its Mike vs the other driver's word."

The proof is that the truck would not go over 80 therefore Mike or any rational person would not try to pass. It would be an impossibility to pass a vehicle going faster than he was capable of doing.


"Since Mike flipped his vehicle, the charge will more than likely stick as it only Mike's truck that was involved in the flip. Usually, you will get charged with careless driving if you are the only one involved in an accident."

Again, it flipped because of the culvert. It was not Mike getting back into his lane. As far as I know, neither the other driver or the oncoming driver said it was dangerously close to being a head on collision. I will have my son email him and ask though.


"Since the 19 year old Mike is familiar with the truck, he should not have pushed it to it's limit of 75 km/hr."

It drives just fine at 75. Why can't he drive it at that speed?



He can bring witnesses that will verify the top speed of the vehicle proving the car was not doing 80 the whole time or he would not have tried to pass. He could probably get a statement by the firemen about the culvert being the primary reason for the flip. He can probably get at least 3 cops statement that the vehicle was not unsafe to drive. Whether these firemen and cops would appear in court, I don't know. Would a written statement be enough?

Would the above create enough doubt to have the careless driving charges dropped or at least lowered? If lowered what are the possible charges could it be lowered to?


Thanks for the responses.

[Sylvestre]

fight it for sure, but be prepared to likely not win. An excuse of "car can't go above XXX because of YYY" won't be accepted, no matter how many people vouch for it. And the car shouldn't have been driven (safety or not).
If you tell the story as you told us, if Mike couldn't pass the first time, he shouldn't have stayed in the 2nd lane.
If the truck was blocking a live lane, the cop has the right to demand it be moved immediately.
The monetary losses have no bearing on the case, and would have been covered by insurance.
In this scenario, the culvert has no bearing on the case.
Even *if* Mike were able to show the other drive "failed to assist in passing", doens't mean Mike wasn't driving carelessly, so really, that won't help.

It's unfortunate, and you should fight it only because it may get pled down or even dismissed if people don't show up, but remember, your argument needs facts relevant to "careless driving" and you haven't provided any.

[gemstone]

But where is the careless driving?


"An excuse of "car can't go above XXX because of YYY" won't be accepted, no matter how many people vouch for it."

It is not an "excuse". It is simply proof that the other driver was lying about his speed.


"if Mike couldn't pass the first time, he shouldn't have stayed in the 2nd lane."

Trying to pass for the second time while staying in the passing lane is no different than pulling back into his own lane and then pulling out to try to pass again. As far as I know there was no immediate danger to any of the drivers when he pulled back into his own lane. He had time.



"In this scenario, the culvert has no bearing on the case."

Why not? He pulled back into his lane, hit the culvert at just the right time and angle to cause the truck to flip. I just don't see careless driving on Mike's part. IMO, and the firemen's, the road conditions caused the accident.


"And the car shouldn't have been driven (safety or not)."

Why not? The truck was not unsafe in any way. Why shouldn't it have been driven? Because it couldn't go over 80? Most roads don't allow driving over 80 anyway?

The truck was in a ditch or field well off the road. There was no reason it needed to be moved right away. It could have waited for him to call around for the best price.

[D-3vil]

I'm assuming you're in Ontario, here's what the HTA says about careless driving:
130. Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 130.

The fact that Mike had an accident shows he was careless. While it may not be enough to prove a careless driving charge (guess it depends on the judge), if you waltz into the courtroom saying "But wait... it's dangerous for the car to go faster than 80", the judge will have two options:
(1) side with the other driver who says he/she was doing 80 all the time. Mike must thus have been doing more than 80, which shows he was careless.
(2) side with Mike and acquit him of all charges -- this is extremely unlikely, as Mike, and not the other driver, has motivation to lie here).

Fact remains that Mike was not driving according to conditions. If his truck can't do more than 80 and starts rattling violently at 75, then doing 65 (if you believe Mike -- he is a teenager, after all) sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Despite all this, you should still fight the charge. If nothing else, you should be able to plead it down to less points / money. But Mike's insurance will likely go up anyway, due to his "1-car collision", for which he will be deemed at fault.

If you were in the GTA, then you may have taken advantage of the backlogged courts here, but you should expect the charge to go to trial and do your research (or Mike). Fight the charge on legal grounds, not emotional grounds (or what you think it should be fought on), as you have been doing so far.

[Sylvestre]

But where is the careless driving?
It is not an "excuse". It is simply proof that the other driver was lying about his speed.
That's not proof. A car that shakes at X speed isn't proof, no matter how many people say it is.

But where is the careless driving?
Trying to pass for the second time while staying in the passing lane is no different than pulling back into his own lane and then pulling out to try to pass again. As far as I know there was no immediate danger to any of the drivers when he pulled back into his own lane. He had time.
No, it is different in the eyes of the law.


Why not? He pulled back into his lane, hit the culvert at just the right time and angle to cause the truck to flip. I just don't see careless driving on Mike's part. IMO, and the firemen's, the road conditions caused the accident.

Road conditions are not accepted as a reason for an accident. Ice isn't. Rain isn't. Raised man-holes aren't. (I can go on). A person driving is expected to notice the road conditions to determine if changing lanes (at whatever speed) is safe. It's unfortunate coincidence, but the judge will hardly accept "act of god" as an excuse. (Yeah, it's unfair, but that's the facts).


Why not? The truck was not unsafe in any way. Why shouldn't it have been driven? Because it couldn't go over 80? Most roads don't allow driving over 80 anyway?
Unless the truck was designed by the manufacturer to not exceed 80, any mechanical defect the truck had that limited its speed would be considered unsafe under the eyes of the law.
either way, if the truck can't exceed 80, why travel 5km/h less than the supposed maximum?


The truck was in a ditch or field well off the road. There was no reason it needed to be moved right away. It could have waited for him to call around for the best price.
That you should take up with the cops, but it has no bearing on the charge.


Look, I'm not saying don't try (in fact, I think you should try), but realize that judges hear thousands of "it wasn't my fault because ..." and by default, they are on the cop's side. Unless you can provide factual evidence that the events described by the cop were wrong, you'll have a tough go.

[enko]

Definately fight it, that charge will screw him for a long time.

The police can force you to take a tow if your car is blocking the road. This happened to a friend of mine last night, he had to fight with the tow truck driver because CAA was already on the way. He finally said he was going to sue the company if he so much as touched his car. The police didn't force him, but his dad talked to the police after and they said if the vehicle is a danger or obstructing traffic in any way whatsoever (judgement call, power of police), they can force you to take any tow truck, whichever can get there soonest. Which does SUCK. However, you can have the tow truck tow you to the side of the road or to a side street or something, but usually they will still charge you 300$ because they know they've got you, there is really NOTHING you can do and yes, it's a bunch of bull.

Secondly I will side with all what most people are saying here, your arguments are just that - arguments. There's no proof, it's all heresay. To me, if this truck can't do 100kph safely, let alone 80, whoever is driving it is a careless driver because i'm sorry, it's just not safe to drive this thing.

Good luck, I would check with insurance about how this charge will affect his rates, might be worth hiring a lawyer. This would show the judge you are serious about the charges.

Nobody ever said laws make sense either. My experience in small claims court taught me that very quickly.

[Sylvestre]

Definately fight it, that charge will screw him for a long time.

The police can force you to take a tow if your car is blocking the road. This happened to a friend of mine last night, he had to fight with the tow truck driver because CAA was already on the way. He finally said he was going to sue the company if he so much as touched his car. The police didn't force him, but his dad talked to the police after and they said if the vehicle is a danger or obstructing traffic in any way whatsoever (judgement call, power of police), they can force you to take any tow truck, whichever can get there soonest. Which does SUCK. However, you can have the tow truck tow you to the side of the road or to a side street or something, but usually they will still charge you 300$ because they know they've got you, there is really NOTHING you can do and yes, it's a bunch of bull.
.

just a quick FYI for you or anyone else reading. If the police force you to move a car, and you have CAA, you can get CAA to reimburse you the charge if another tow company is used. It'll take time and you'll need to send in a bunch of documentation, but hey, you still get the $ back eventually.
This is a pretty common occurance.

[kcorscadden]

"Mike will more than likely NOT win for the following reasons:

- Mike got scared when the truck began to rattle and chickened out."
He has been driving this truck for a couple of years. I highly doubt he "chickened out". The rattling just alerted him quicker that the other car had sped up and was now unpassable so he slowed to move back into his lane.

The bottom line is that he went out to pass, the other driver sped up and thus the rattling began. Now Mike could have pushed the truck above 80 and possibly stalled it or something could have popped. When he realized that the truck couldn't go above 80 he should have reduced his speed and merged back in behind the other vehicle. From the sounds of your story he sounds like he was in the passing lane for like 30 secs to 1 min. Very unsafe.


"- He was in the passing lane for FAR too long... If you can't pass the other car, get out of their regardless of if it is clear."
It was not unsafe because it was still a passing zone and the way was clear. He was going to give up the passing until the other car appeared to slow to allow him to pass. It would be no different if he had tried to pass again after pulling back into his lane.

The whole point to passing another vehicle as I hope you know is too do it as quickly as possible. You don't just sit out in the passing lane because the way is clear. You go out and you pass the vehicle and then get back in there as quickly as possible. The second Mike realized that the other vehicle sped up he should have merged back in behind.

"- Mike flipped his vehicle because he was in a hurry to get back over (or whatever reason) because of the oncoming vehicle."
No, according to the firemen he flipped because of the raised culvert in the road. They are not "experts" but have seen enough accidents to give a informed conclusion. Just bad timing.

Had Mike merged in behind the other vehicle when he realized that the other vehicle had sped up, this could have been avoided. Instead, he stayed out there and then a oncoming vehicle came and he rushed his way back into his lane. Since he was rushing (whether you or he wants to admit it or not), he probably didn't see the culvert until it was too late. There isn't enough information here to give a justified opinion here.

"Sure the other driver supposed lied about doing 80, but PROVE IT !!!! Unless he has witnesses that can verify his story, its Mike vs the other driver's word."
The proof is that the truck would not go over 80 therefore Mike or any rational person would not try to pass. It would be an impossibility to pass a vehicle going faster than he was capable of doing.

What I was referring too was any witnesses at the scene of the accident that could verify that the other driver increased their speed. You being a witness doesn't mean a damn thing as you weren't at the scene where the accident and charges took place. Or were you?

You could walk into a court room and testify on behalf of Mike that the truck rattles when it goes above 80, but how does this help Mike? In fact this would actually hurt Mike's case as the opposing attorney (they would eat you alive on the stand) and judge would probably throw the case out as both you and Mike knew that the truck rattled when it went above 80 and that 80 was the trucks top speed thus making it almost impossible to overtake the other vehicle as they were doing close to 80. The judge and attorney will probably say that you should have merged back in behind.

"Since Mike flipped his vehicle, the charge will more than likely stick as it only Mike's truck that was involved in the flip. Usually, you will get charged with careless driving if you are the only one involved in an accident."
Again, it flipped because of the culvert. It was not Mike getting back into his lane. As far as I know, neither the other driver or the oncoming driver said it was dangerously close to being a head on collision. I will have my son email him and ask though.

There isn't enough info here again to make a justified opinion here.

All I can say is that Mike probably rushed because of the oncoming vehicle and didn't see the culvert. If he had time to get over, then why did he hit the culvert? He should have spotted it and gone around it. Sounds like he wasn't paying attention as he simply saw the oncoming vehicle and was like "oh $hit" and then immediately steered to the right to get back in his lane.

Besides, you can't use weather or road conditions as an excuse for the accident. True, the culvert caused the accident, but the culvert also could have been avoided. It is called a "preventable accident".

Regardless, the culvert could have been avoided and thus is why the truck flipped and that is why he was charged.

He can bring witnesses that will verify the top speed of the vehicle proving the car was not doing 80 the whole time or he would not have tried to pass. He could probably get a statement by the firemen about the culvert being the primary reason for the flip. He can probably get at least 3 cops statement that the vehicle was not unsafe to drive. Whether these firemen and cops would appear in court, I don't know. Would a written statement be enough?

None of this will help him.... it will hurt his case as he knew the top speed was 80 before the rattling began.

The question that I have is why didn't Mike push it above 80? Why not 90 or 100? You said before that if the truck goes above 80 it stalls and go back down to 80. Is this right? If so, that would make the trucks top speed 80, so it would be almost impossible for this truck to have passed the other vehicle as they sped up too whatever speed (75 or 80).

You have to think about this from a different perspective. You KNEW the truck couldn't go beyond 80. I assume that Mike knew this too, but he still pushed it to 80 and thus the rattling began. Strike 1.

He was in the passing lane unnecessarily when his top speed was the speed that the vehicle he was trying to overtake was already doing. Strike 2.

He remained in the passing lane only until an oncoming vehicle came into the picture. It seems like he rushed, didn't see the culvert, and rolled the vehicle. No other vehicles too my knowledge were involved in the accident, correct? There is your Strike 3

I hate to say it but Mike is screwed here unless there are details you are leaving out or Mike hasn't told you.

Would the above create enough doubt to have the careless driving charges dropped or at least lowered? If lowered what are the possible charges could it be lowered to?

Unless there is more info then the answer is unfortunately "NO". I am not trying to be an ass, but I don't see the charges being dropped or lowered.

[iluvmikeharris]

If the pig, sorry cop, wants to force the car to be towed, that's one thing. But he can't force you to sign anything. I would simply tell the tow truck driver that he doesn't have my consent to move the vehicle, and I won't be paying any tow charges. You can't be forced into a contract, the contract is voidable due to undue influence.

[LL29]

"- Mike flipped his vehicle because he was in a hurry to get back over (or whatever reason) because of the oncoming vehicle."

No, according to the firemen he flipped because of the raised culvert in the road. They are not "experts" but have seen enough accidents to give a informed conclusion. Just bad timing.

"Since Mike flipped his vehicle, the charge will more than likely stick as it only Mike's truck that was involved in the flip. Usually, you will get charged with careless driving if you are the only one involved in an accident."

Again, it flipped because of the culvert. It was not Mike getting back into his lane. As far as I know, neither the other driver or the oncoming driver said it was dangerously close to being a head on collision. I will have my son email him and ask though.


so every vehicle that goes over that raised culvert get's flipped? LOL

[enko]

If the pig, sorry cop, wants to force the car to be towed, that's one thing. But he can't force you to sign anything. I would simply tell the tow truck driver that he doesn't have my consent to move the vehicle, and I won't be paying any tow charges. You can't be forced into a contract, the contract is voidable due to undue influence.

Good luck with that. They won't release your vehicle. Have fun on the bus for 8 months while you sue them.

[gemstone]

Well thanks for all the replys. I just read the email from Mike to my son. I wrote about Mike from what I knew through second hand stories. I was off on several parts. I'm sorry about that but hope opinions will still be given on the updated account.


Mike's email:

I tried to pass a car that was doing 65km. When the truck started shaking I knew I couldn't pass him so I slowed down to pull back into my lane. After I was in my lane the car I had tried to pass slammed on his brakes for no reason I could see. I put on my brakes and the truck started turning a little towards the center line but had stopped turning. The truck hit the bump in the road from the culvert and flipped. I was not moving very fast when I hit the bump and would have stopped soon easily without any damage. There was no cars close behind me. I never came close to hitting the back end of the car even when I flipped. The car coming from the other direction was not part of anything but had just stopped after I flipped. It was not the reason I pulled back into my lane. The ticket says careless driving. The box where it says witness is checked - none -yet I saw both cars questioned and notes were taken. There is - no car unsafe to drive on the ticket. It was just a comment made by a cop who was there but did not write the ticket. I don't think I even said anything about that to him but I was kinda in a blur at the time.

[ygtgxi]

good luck and i hope u make it

[squireglig]

I believe he got the careless driving charge simply because he flipped the vehicle. There is no time you can safely "flip" a vehicle, so it is careless driving no matter the conditions (no one around or not). And also because it was his fault, not another driver. Because he did not avoid the hazard or compensate for it, he flipped the truck.

On the other hand, if his driving record is clean and this is a first offense, you may be offered to plead down the charge.

I had a similar charge on my for rear-ending a vehicle when I was 19 (completely my fault), and got it plead down in court.

All in all, definitely fight the ticket. It's worth a shot to get it reduced at least, otherwise it will be a harsh stain on his record for a while..

[CompWizrd]

Friend of mine rolled a Jeep end over end 7 times on a highway, the main reason she survived is because the Jeep was in bad shape and the seat broke when the Jeep landed on her head.

It had just passed a safety a few months ago. After, I ripped out the seatbelt posts off the jeep by just grabbing the belt and yanking.. and yet that managed to pass a safety...

She was able to plead it down to "off-roading" or something similar, from the original careless driving.

[iluvmikeharris]

Good luck with that. They won't release your vehicle. Have fun on the bus for 8 months while you sue them.

The can impound it, but they can't take it to their shop without my consent. Booya.

[enko]

The can impound it, but they can't take it to their shop without my consent. Booya.

Guess that doesn't really help your theory of not paying tow charges then...

[deuce1974]

Go and get an opinion from these guys pay the 5 or 6 hundred to have them fight for ya. If they win it is worth it because your insurance after a careless charge will triple at least.