Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-6 (clearance for overtaking), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-1 (care in starting from a stop), and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-12 (interval between vehicles).  Defendant argued that the prosecution failed to prove the charged violations to a standard of clear and convincing evidence as there was no in-court identification of the Defendant by the Officer.  Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure, before trial the Defendant had filed a written waiver of his right to be present at the trial.  During the trial, the trial magistrate stated that, by filing such a waiver, the Defendant had acknowledged that he was the operator of the motor vehicle.  When defense counsel objected, the trial magistrate ruled that the waiver was invalid and threatened to find the Defendant in default.  The Defendant then appeared and acknowledged his name and date of birth on the record, which corresponded to the information listed on the citation. The Panel held that this acknowledgement, in conjunction with the language in the Defendant’s “waiver of appearance” form that he was the “defendant in the above-entitled action,” made it highly probable that the Defendant and the operator of the vehicle were one and the same.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violations.