standing on pegs while riding on DVP

[thumpit]

Read a couple of pages. That's all the drivel I could take this early in the morning. Their moderator "willys" is a real piece of work. People like that deserve to get railroaded by an over zealous cop.

I was referring to post #11 and a few of his after. These didn't sound like cowboys of the road.

And no one deserves to get railroaded by an over zealous cop!!!!
If I may suggest this friendly piece of advice....give your head a shake for saying that.

Seriously. I suspect that you must be a cop. There is a distinct attitude pattern to your posts. So, if assuming so...I wouldn't want your job, and I am the first to admit it is a job of isolation. Unfortunately that isolation often dictates that your only friends in the world are other cops. And for good reason, they are the ones watching your back. The longer you do the work, the more embittered you become. Unfortunately a misdirected sense of entitlement though too, goes along with it. This is human nature of course. It is predicated upon (when not doing traffic duty) by dealing with some serious trash. You deal with dirt. You get dirty. And if you don't, the majority retire early. To save the themselves.

The personalities that can endure the job the longest, are usually not conducive to also being a 'good head' by the public's judgement.

While many may or may not agree with my assessment, my comments are my own opinion. But they didn't just become invented overnight. And aside from traffic, I've never had any encounter with cops other than when they were not helpful in the least when we had a robbery on our property 40 years ago, and again 10 years ago. I welcome the opportunity for my opinion to become more positive, but when I see an unedited video of the guy at the airport that got tazered to death and factor the 'defensive' comments by the cops at the scene, and when I read what happened to that guy with the KLR in post#11, it all too resembles why my opinion of them is what is.

Don't ANYONE piss in my ear and attempt to sell it as rain.

[thumpit]

Thank you for providing such a great example of hysterics.

You're welcome.

But I'm sorry that post #11 flew over your level of understanding.

[jc100]

see this: http://www.klr650.net/forums/showthread.php?t=74166

"Nope, only courteous professional ones."

So consider yourself lucky AND fortunate.

I should buy a lottery ticket then because in 40+ years and living on three different continents I've only encountered professional, courteous cops.

Have you considered that just perhaps there may be a tiny minority of bad eggs among them rather than them all being the brown shirted, black booted nazis they are portrayed to be here? I also find that when talking to cops politely you tend to get a polite response in return.

[jc100]

Back on topic...so the count is at one person (maybe) in the whole of Canada so far for being arrested for standing on pegs? Is that correct?

[08CBR1000]

Why do you need to stand on your pegs at 100 km/h??? Just curious.

Maybe you should ride your bike a little more then one Timmies to another then you wouldn't ask such a rediculous question!

[Rob MacLennan]

Back on topic...so the count is at one person (maybe) in the whole of Canada so far for being arrested for standing on pegs? Is that correct?

I believe that the original message was questioning whether anyone had been charged for it, so that measure has been met. The point is that the text of Ont. Reg. 455/07 is fraught with a great amount of potential for abuse, by the broad range of interpretations possible.

You can nit-pick it all you want, but the facts remain.

[Kuro]

I believe that the original message was questioning whether anyone had been charged for it, so that measure has been met. The point is that the text of Ont. Reg. 455/07 is fraught with a great amount of potential for abuse, by the broad range of interpretations possible.

You can nit-pick it all you want, but the facts remain.

Agreed. The potential for abuse is there, and it may be just that the clock is ticking until one bad cop uses it to nail a rider. I don't see a problem with being prepared. Although the chances of being nailed for it unjustly is low, the chance is still there and why not protect yourself with knowledge.

I've been pulled over at least 3 times in 2 years, but I've met all nice cops so far, and 2 of those times, I didn't get a ticket. I did get pulled over to what seemed to me like 'no reason' because all 3 times, I was really minding my own business not doing anything dangerous, but bikes do draw more unwanted attention.

[ddusseld]

Since you seem to believe that GTAM represents the whole of Canada I'll do some extrapolation. Let's say that there have been 100 reports of being charged with stunting on GTAM. One of those was for standing on the pegs. Therefore 1% off all stunting charges are for standing on the pegs. Let's say 10,000 stunting charges have been laid in total. This would be 100 charges for standing on pegs.

Obviously the above is utter crap but no more then saying that maybe only 1 person in the whole of Canada has been charged for standing on the pegs based on reports from GTAM.

Even more obvious is the way you deliberately ignore the point most people make about the stunting law. The very fact that a stunting charge could legitimately be laid for standing on the pegs shows how flawed the wording of this law is.

Back on topic...so the count is at one person (maybe) in the whole of Canada so far for being arrested for standing on pegs? Is that correct?

[jc100]

Oh no. Not extrapolating here. Just saying, it seems the potential for abuse of the law is there in this case but there's no hard evidence that it has actually taken place.

You know, a bit like having "loitering with intent" on a statute book but not actually being arrested for just waiting for a bus for example.

[Rob MacLennan]

Oh no. Not extrapolating here. Just saying, it seems the potential for abuse of the law is there in this case but there's no hard evidence that it has actually taken place.

Except for.... you know, the statement that it HAS. Then there's the case that's making it's way through the courts, that involves an officer potentially profiting from making falsified charges under HTA 172.

[jc100]

Except for.... you know, the statement that it HAS. Then there's the case that's making it's way through the courts, that involves an officer potentially profiting from making falsified charges under HTA 172.

So there are hard facts then. That must mean there must be a paper trail somewhere then where this person was just arrested for standing on his pegs (just the pegs remember, no speeding, wheelies etc). Surely there would have been such outrage on his behalf that newspaper stories were published. Great, I love hard facts. So much better than diatribe and supposition from unsubstantiated third person reports.

So far we're still at a count of....perhaps.....one (maybe). That's not exactly a pandemic of abuse.

[CruisnGrrl]

So there are hard facts then. That must mean there must be a paper trail somewhere then where this person was just arrested for standing on his pegs (just the pegs remember, no speeding, wheelies etc). Surely there would have been such outrage on his behalf that newspaper stories were published. Great, I love hard facts. So much better than diatribe and supposition from unsubstantiated third person reports.

So far we're still at a count of....perhaps.....one (maybe). That's not exactly a pandemic of abuse.

One that's been caught. And that's one too many for something that was never supposed to happen ever in the first place.

[Rob MacLennan]

So there are hard facts then. That must mean there must be a paper trail somewhere then where this person was just arrested for standing on his pegs (just the pegs remember, no speeding, wheelies etc). Surely there would have been such outrage on his behalf that newspaper stories were published. Great, I love hard facts. So much better than diatribe and supposition from unsubstantiated third person reports.

So far we're still at a count of....perhaps.....one (maybe). That's not exactly a pandemic of abuse.

And yet we have substantiated reports regarding abuse of this law, by an officer of the OPP. I'm quite sure, at this point, that it wouldn't matter to you if there were 50 substantiated reports of officers abusing the terminology of Ont. Reg. 455/07. You have already determined that this is a good law and will support it; reductio ad absurdum.

One section has already been found to be contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by two separate appeals judges, in two separate jurisdictions. THAT is the appropriate measure.

[FullMotoJacket]

Why waste your time with a devil's advocate sub troll Rob? You'll never get those keystrokes back.

[Rob MacLennan]

Why waste your time with a devil's advocate sub troll Rob? You'll never get those keystrokes back.

Because pointing out the flaws in his debate may well sway others, who consider the matter in a more critical fashion.

[jc100]

Because pointing out the flaws in his debate may well sway others, who consider the matter in a more critical fashion.

The flaws in debate such as this thread pointing out the hysteria of being suddenly arrested for avoiding bumps in the road by standing on pegs (this is what is being discussed here)? The FACTS simply do not support this at all.

I will always look at information from both sides before making up my mind on most things. That is actually part of my job. In this case though the supporting information for your side of the argument is found severely wanting.

In the case of people being arrested solely (this is quite important) for standing on their pegs, it seems there is scant evidence if any to support your argument that this is an occurence which would show evidence of ripe abuse by the police in this particular case.

Debate works much better with facts. I'm very willing to change my mind with the introduction of facts to support your arguments but remember the common denominator of debate is that the party with the extraordinary claim has the onus of providing proof for that claim.

[Rob MacLennan]

The flaws in debate such as this thread pointing out the hysteria of being suddenly arrested for avoiding bumps in the road by standing on pegs (this is what is being discussed here)? The FACTS simply do not support this at all.

I will always look at information from both sides before making up my mind on most things. That is actually part of my job. In this case though the supporting information for your side of the argument is found severely wanting.

In the case of people being arrested solely (this is quite important) for standing on their pegs, it seems there is scant evidence if any to support your argument that this is an occurence which would show evidence of ripe abuse by the police in this particular case.

Debate works much better with facts. I'm very willing to change my mind with the introduction of facts to support your arguments but remember the common denominator of debate is that the party with the extraordinary claim has the onus of providing proof for that claim.

Debate also works much better when you treat a subject in a holistic manner, rather than trying to break it down into manageable and dismissable sound bites.

The facts that we have on the anti-HTA 172 side are that a huge portion of those charged have been found not guilty or guilty of a lesser charge (so much so that I cannot find current numbers, as they aren't being published), that in two cases sitting judges have found the speeding portion of the law to be in contravention of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that people charged under this law face up-front penalties that can very easily be massively out of scale with the actions involved, and that an officer of the OPP has been charged for making use of those very same up-front penalties in order to cash in.

None of this involved histrionics. They're simple fact.

[Gixxer6]

With my limited experience with traffic court (a number of speeding tickets when i was younger) i have found that most if not all cases are reduced or thrown out. Using court convictions as statistical info seems a bit misleading as to a true measure of the effectiveness of the law.

[Rob MacLennan]

With my limited experience with traffic court (a number of speeding tickets when i was younger) i have found that most if not all cases are reduced or thrown out. Using court convictions as statistical info seems a bit misleading as to a true measure of the effectiveness of the law.

Statistics also include people who simply accept the charge, as written, as these are considered to be convictions. You don't see these in court.

[Gixxer6]

True i would hazzard to guess that a very small percentage say 2% make it to court for a trial.

If i were so inclined to continue this rediculous thread i would say that those people who don't take their tickets to court believed they were guilty and therefore the officers giving those tickets are excellent examples of their vocation, but given all that i have read on this thread that ideal would be an uncommon and unwanted.

Are the people of this community up in arms because 172 takes away their fundamental rights, maybe, but the more likely scenario is that one or two people genuinely understand this law and are legitamately opposed to it and the rest just like to do wheelies and go ridiculously fast and feel that this god given right may be taken away.

To the latter, you can still speed and do wheelies and if you get pulled over you will still receive a penalty as you would have prior to this law. The only difference is your bike gets taken away. As with any child abusing there privileges sometimes said child needs their peepee slapped. Same goes for those of you who like to chase people with knives, the knives get taken away as well.

To the former, thank you for being informed