Driver to fight ticket from I-75 inferno

Darmstadter · Jul 29, 2009

Some people have nerve......he's lucky they aren't going after him for the bridge damages.

Delores Flynn / The Detroit News
Hazel Park -- The Clawson man who was issued a speeding ticket in the fiery crash on northbound I-75 near Nine Mile earlier this month has decided to contest it in court.

An attorney for Saied Haidarian-Shahri, 27, has requested a formal hearing on Aug. 25 to fight the civil traffic citation for the July 15 accident that destroyed the freeway bridge and caused damage estimated at more than $2 million.

He will appear at 1 p.m. before 43rd District Court Judge Keith P. Hunt in Hazel Park, according to the court clerk's office.

The Wayne State University graduate student would have had 14 days to pay the fine after being ticketed July 22. Shahri faces a $150 fine for property damage and two points on his driver's record.

State Police have said Shahri was using a newly minted driver's license when he apparently took an Interstate 75 curve too fast in a 2004 Honda Civic and collided with a tanker carrying more than 13,000 gallons in diesel fuel and gasoline. The crash triggered an inferno that brought down the Nine Mile overpass and blocked a key commuting artery.

arkjarhead · Jul 29, 2009

Evidently he thinks he has a way to prove his innocence or at least get off. You are innocent until proven guilty, or that the way it's supposed to be. It's kinda turned the other way around.

layoutshooter · Jul 29, 2009

I have NO problem with that, it is his right. He has NOT been convicted of anything. In fact, MORE people should be forcing their rights.

wallytrucker1 · Jul 29, 2009

I would think if he beats the ticket he might have less or no liability in any future civil proceedings.

layoutshooter · Jul 29, 2009

OJ was aqquited and STILL lost his civil suit.

OntarioVanMan · Jul 29, 2009

Now the state is going to have to prove what "too fast" means...they'd have to do a forsenics examination of the scene to ascertain and prove "too fast" If "too fast" is just the "Opinion" of the officer at the scene...that won't hold up...

Myself..I think the guy is fighting to make an out of court settlement and get the 2 points dropped...I would..that 2 points can cost thousands in increased insurance costs...

greg334 · Jul 29, 2009

Beating the ticket will mean nothing if he ends up in court for the bridge damage. He has denied all the time that he didn't cause it but I know that people still fly past there at 70 plus and have been for a long long time.

The entire section has been a mess since they built it in '67. There were a lot of accidents there, even on dry sunny days, until they grooved the roadway in '78. When they put blacktop on the surface because the state and county is so d*mn cheap, there have been more accidents. The county shifted their budget to widening the roads in the north part of the country.

Under the law, the insurance company will pay for it if he has insurance and they will only pay something like a $1m which I think is the cap. If he doesn't have insurance, then he is liable for some smaller amount. The truck insurance will pay for the truck and cargo lost and we, the tax payer will get stuck with the rest.

But many are wondering why did the bridge collapse so fast, it wasn't an explosion but a fire and a few have been silent on the request to look into the collapse itself as we are rebuilding so many bridges so fast.

BigWheeler · Jul 29, 2009

If he is found guilty I wonder if he will ever get insurance again?

layoutshooter · Jul 29, 2009

Not at a discount rate!!

Jack_Berry · Jul 29, 2009

BigWheeler said:
If he is found guilty I wonder if he will ever get insurance again?

to some folks insurance does not matter. buy car, get policy, get tags, drop ins. simple.

FIS53 · Jul 29, 2009

Jack said it right as that's been a game here as well, get the tags and then drop the high priced insc. Now though the govt has started informing insc companies of certain violations right away and the insc companies respond immdiately if they are no longer covering the violator. So this allows for the cops to bring in the person for further investigation for legal insc coverage. Here it's a $5000 fine for no insc but I've seen where that amount is negotiable in court (shouldn't be but oh well).

Rob

greg334 · Jul 29, 2009

Other states have been proactive in having a clearinghouse system that informs the state if the insurance is dropped - PA comes to mind.

We had another incident today in Ohio. Apparently a driver of a mini-van was tooling, served into another car, hit the barrier, roil;ling over ejecting three kids - two were killed, one was run over by the semi on the other side of the turnpike and one was killed when they hit the road.

The mother who was driving without a license, let alone insurance seems to be at fault for all of it and there have been comments that she should not be charged with any crime. I say charge her. However it is confusing about her license, because the MSP has said she never had a license and her neighbor signed off on the purchase of the van and the insurance.

By the way the kids were not in seatbelt or car seats.

Now mind you we have had three accidents in the last month other than the i-75 one. Yesterday three kids were killed when the driver of a car was traveling some say over 90mph and lost control. The car hit one of them brick signs that are at the enterence of some sub-divisions and it was a mess, folded in the middle of the car. We had a few weeks ago some idiot who ignored the flashing lights at a train crossing and killed everyone in the car.

Darmstadter · Jul 30, 2009

He certainly does have the right to fight the ticket, but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. By all accounts it looks like it was his fault. In the world we live in today, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets a book deal.

ATeam · Jul 30, 2009

Darmstadter said:
He certainly does have the right to fight the ticket, but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. By all accounts it looks like it was his fault. In the world we live in today, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets a book deal.

We have courts to examine all the evidence and properly and fairly hear from all sides. It is the man's absolute right to contest a traffic ticket and it is not our place to conclude ahead of time whether or not he has committed a chargable offense.

I once served as the forman of a jury that spent a full week on a traffic case. A FULL WEEK hearing all sides, viewing the evidence and considering the arguements. (Actually four days. The first day was spent interviewing and seating jurors.) This for a traffic accident that happened in an instant. It was a case where a car struck a bicyclist in an intersection. Anyone reviewing the news stories, if were were any, would have read something like "Young woman injured when car strikes her on her bicycle." After reviewing the facts, we found 100% in favor of the motorist and 0% in favor of the bicyclist. In this case, the jury's task was to assign liability to the parties involved.

Things are not always as they seem, especially when they are reported second hand, and especially especially when they are reported in the press.

There is no way the driver in this case should be judged before he has had his day in court. It is his right to contest the ticket. If he believes he has grounds to do so, he should contest the ticket.

Note in the story you cited that the value-laden words "newly-minted" do not mean the man had no previous driving experience. At age 27, he may have been driving under another valid license for many years. We know nothing of his previous driving record. We do not know if he actually was speeding or the grounds on which the officer made the conclusion. Even if he was speeding, we do not know if the speed contributed to the accident.

It may well turn out that this is just another story about just another four-wheeler in just another truck-involved wreck where the four-wheeler was at fault. But at least give the man his rightful presumption of innocence day in court. As professional drivers we would all want the same.

OntarioVanMan · Jul 30, 2009

Darn you guys are slackers on the insurance issue...In Ontario it is I believe a $5,000 fine 1st offense Manditory prison on 2nd time...In an accident the vehicle without insurance is always at fault....if you look at it....that car shouldn't be on the road to be in an accident...
I rememeber one time I got pulled over by a state trooper I was panicking cause I couldn't find my papers....wife said don't sweat it ..they don't ask for it down here...

Scuba · Jul 30, 2009

greg334 said:
But many are wondering why did the bridge collapse so fast, it wasn't an explosion but a fire and a few have been silent on the request to look into the collapse itself as we are rebuilding so many bridges so fast.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm fire melts steel

Darmstadter · Jul 30, 2009

and paper covers rock

greg334 · Jul 30, 2009

There is a lot of evidence that the state has slacked off on quality control. I was just on a road that was completely rebuilt three years ago and now it is being torn up for a rebuild down to the gravel.

We use crushed concrete in some of the road work as spec'ed from the state, I know the owner of one of the companies who processes concrete and he says that the inspectors stop coming there to test his product and he has no rejects from the hundreds of trucks that have been delived to state work. His other customer is the state of NY and every time they order the stuff, they have an inspector come out and test the products before he approves them to be shipped.

As for insurance, we used to have a non-insured motorist fund but no fault was made so we could save money by having our insurance cover the costs. The former system worked well, if you got into an accident and the other guy was at fault, you could sue him but now you have zero ablity to do a thing.

OntarioVanMan · Jul 30, 2009

Concrete is not rock...it will breakdown after awhile especially when Mi allows heavy weight trucks...the roadbed will disintegrate.

greg334 · Jul 30, 2009

OntarioVanMan said:
Concrete is not rock...it will breakdown after awhile especially when Mi allows heavy weight trucks...the roadbed will disintegrate.

I know that but there are areas of the country that have just as heavy weight traveling on them and they don't break down like this. Since the 70's, the state has been lax in their spec'ing of the material for the roads and can do a lot better.

I was pointing out to my wife the other day that the old roadway down from a friends house has yet to be replaced, I remember when it was built in 1969. It has truck traffic running on it so it is not an issue of breaking down with time but rather what is in it. This is the old concrete with stones in it that you can see.

The other thing is, we don't have the heavy trucks running on the roads like we did. The law wasn't made for Michigan trains to run on the road but steel haulers who were moving rolled steel between plants. I remember lines of them from one steel plant down river to the Chevy stampling plant, double trailers with three coils on each one.