Reply With QuoteHmm, this guy did, and the penalty following trial turned out to be an HTA172 conviction.Originally Posted by mbroyda
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc...009oncj620.pdf
|
|
Maybe we can pick up the slack and filter beg!!!! Plenty of open windows I pass, might as well keep my throttle hand out! 1 foot on the back break (if needed), 1 hand clutch feathering, 1 hand right up in their windows begging.
Hmm, this guy did, and the penalty following trial turned out to be an HTA172 conviction.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc...009oncj620.pdf
There is a little more to this than "penalty for filtering". It is actually worthwhile to read this.
I enjoy listening to the radio at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven.
I enjoyed it as a good read.... seems to take a turn for the worse for Mr. Bunda at #32
Moderator
Yup. There's a reason why you should avoid testifying, if at all possible.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
Agreed. It is disturbing that at least part of the HTA172 charge is because he was interpreted to be deliberately riding as close as possible to the motorcycle in front of him, something we do all the time in pack formation (to prevent cars from breaking into the middle of the pack).
To clarify - he passed cars too closely on the right when filtering. Normally a defense could be mounted that this was a singular error, or momentary lapse in judgement, and so did not constitute a 172 offense. However, earlier during his ride he had been observed by the police officer to be riding with his front wheel 'about two feet to the right of' the motorcycle in front of him. This behaviour caused the judge to conclude that the rider was deliberately riding in an unsafe manner, and charged him.
Last edited by harald; 06-13-2011 at 09:19 PM.
Actually one of the bigger problems here was that he was observed riding within 2 feet from the bike ahead of him at some point. This was considered to be a demonstration of a pattern of unsafe riding, which aggravated the fact of passing the cars before the turn.
What is worth noticing here too is that he was found not guilty of the charges in the first two questions ("marked departure from the legal speed", "racing", etc.)
I enjoy listening to the radio at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven.
Not 2 feet from the bike in front of him....
Officer Morrow testified that he observed the motorcycles from a distance of
approximately 50 to 70 metres, as they proceeded on Lancaster. It was only once they stopped
behind the cars at the traffic light that he was able to catch up with them. He described that the
motorcycles were extremely close together. He noted in Exhibit 1 that the front wheel of Mr Bunda’s
motorcycle (second motorcycle but first on right side of the group) was only about 2 feet to the right
of the rear wheel of the first motorcycle. The officer then testified that when the motorcycles passed
to the right of the stopped cars they had to weave to get past the mirrors of the cars.
There are some serious mistakes on the part of the Justice and the defendant in those notes. Trying to charge the rider with the possible danger of someone suddenly opening their door is riduculous and actually has the door opener in contravention of 165.
"
Similarly, had any person be ita car door that a motorcycle would suddenly appear beside them."
a child or an adult opened his or her car door when Mr Bunda passed to the right, that person or Mr
Bunda may have been injured. As I found above, there was no room for Mr Bunda’s motorcycle to
be to the right of the cars and as such there would be no expectation on the part of a person opening
Passing to the right at 5kph is not "suddenly appearing beside them". Opening the door without first ascertaining safety is an offence itself. Passing at 5 to 10kph is plenty of time to brake! Especially if you filter with 2 fingers on the brake and use idle rpm for any speed while feathering the clutch.
Had this rider properly defended himself he wouldn't have been nailed with the proximity issue.
That's like charging someone for driving in a manner that doesn't consider the illegal actions of another person! That's abusrb. His proximity to the cars beside him at 5kph is not an issue of safety at all and I'm suprised he blundered under the cross so badly!
None the less it makes good reading in preperation.
It seems to me that the defendant was both speeding and got caught with his 1 second distance line, and began faultering elsewhere in his defence.
Over all filtering is an advanced manouver and requires much more thought and skill, and shouldn't be coupled with recklace speeding. If one is to filter one should stink of advanced skills, respectability, safety in all other areas of your riding, rather than tearing it up, then nicking a car's mirror and expecting to get off easy.
Last edited by alaywa; 06-13-2011 at 09:33 PM.
That's another complete miss on the part of the Justice. From 70 ft back the cop saw two riders 2ft apart (side by side). From 70 ft back the cop had no depth perception to distinguish their true x and y distances apart, he could only detect x. This cops testimony of their proximity is only partial and should have been dismissed.
This was a very very poor Justice, and the defendant should have broken out some sketches to cross the cop immediately. Asked the cop to draw his position relative to the riders and draw what he witnessed was 2 feet apart. Then asked the cop to explain how he could have judged depth from that distance and asked him to calculate the hypotenuse (the diagonal) distance to the lead rider on the spot!
The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of anotheror more lines of vehicles in each direction; or...
vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and,
(a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has
signalled his or her intention to make a left turn;
(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two
There is another point the defandant missed out on. Sufficient room also depends on speed and safety (prefaced before subsection a)). I mention speed, though it is not mentioned in 150 because, in instances where a car makes a right turn in the lane of another car stopped at a light, whereby they are sharing a lane, on has to ask if this sharing would have been acceptable at speed? Likely not! If a Justice would allow a car to temporarility share a lane for the purpose of making a right turn at stopped intesection, that would be considered safe, but would a judge allow 2 cars in a wide lane on a highway?!?! Certainly not! The point of sharing a lane with adaquate room, requires speed to be considered as a factor in determining what is adaquate safety and reaction time, as the Justice mentions.
The bikes were not wrong in sharing a lane and using available space to pass to the right, even if they did move their handle bars to avert touching the mirrors of the cars. At a stopped intersection, what they did was actually safe....if indeed the defendant was around the 10kph speed!
And as the Justice admits, safety is a product of proximity and speed, as the Justice states earlier with regard to "bumper to bumper" traffic.
It's a shame the defendant crumbled under the pressure and incriminated himself!
Nah. Under the law he's pretty restricted in how he interprets evidence, and he explains his decisions to accept the testimony of the cop and disregard the testimony of the defendant. The defendant needed a much better lawyer, however, to disassemble the officer's testimony. The trumped up charge is based on 'normal' group riding behaviour - this should have been a minor conviction, not an HTA 172 one....
What I mean to say is that the Justice overlooks 165 and also overlooks her own statement that speed effects safety with respect to proximity. Don't forget 12kph is damn jogging pace and we are dealing with SS bikes with very strong brakes and low inertia at those piddly speeds. She simply didn't use common sense and went for the (over)kill!!!! There is a clear SS bias and weak testimony from the cop, given that he was 70ft back and can't attest to speeds and or the level of safety of the conditions given that he was so far back of the group.
The cop himself could neither detect the turn signals of the 3 cars, so there is no evidence to suggest that all 3 cars did or did not have their turn signals on. Even though the rider cannot confirm the other 2 vehicles had their turn signals on, that's a memory issue, not a site condition and when the cop cannot attest to it either, the Justice should give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant!!! Innocent until PROVEN guilty remember?
There simply isn't enough evidence to convict, let alone of such a ridiculous charge the Justice escalates up to!!! The nervous character of a defendant given their lack of experience in such circumstances should also be considered, where as this is routine for the cop, even routine for cops to show up and play dumb under the cross.
The Justice goes on to dismiss the defendant's cross of the cop, saying it was immaterial (what he was unable to recall), while the Justice nails the defendant on a fumbled calculation of 1 second gap, then later he says approximately 20ft, so they go on to doubt everything he says from that point citing that that many feet over 1 second constitutes speeding. Fact is this Justice was not following the limitations of the law but was flat out head hunting.
The only thing I can fathom on the Justice's side is that he defendant was arrogant, belligerent or as they put it "combative". Either way, that's no excuse to screw the defendant like that!
Last edited by alaywa; 06-14-2011 at 12:13 AM.
Clearly there was enough evidence to convict on, based in large part on the filtering aspect, otherwise an HTA172 conviction would not have been registered on Dec 22 2009. This ruling provides cops with the necessary guidance to lay HTA172 charges for filtering, as well as offering guidance to other courts hearing HTA172 charges based on filtering.
[50] In my view, the actions of Mr Bunda were not consistent with a mere error in judgment. His pattern both of driving in close proximity to the lead motorcycle on Lancaster Street coupled with his passing the cars on the right was consistent with a lack of due care and attention and without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway. He departed from the standard of care which a reasonable and prudent driver would follow.
[51] I now consider whether he endangered any person by ‘driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle’. In my view, he did endanger himself, the other motorcyclists and persons in the cars stopped at the traffic light by being in such close proximity to other vehicles. With a distance of only 2 feet from the lead motorcycle he would have had no time to take appropriate evasive action had the lead motorcyclist swerved to his right. A collision would have been likely. Similarly, had any person be it a child or an adult opened his or her car door when Mr Bunda passed to the right, that person or Mr Bunda may have been injured. As I found above, there was no room for Mr Bunda’s motorcycle to be to the right of the cars and as such there would be no expectation on the part of a person opening a car door that a motorcycle would suddenly appear beside them.
[52] The wording of the legislation in subsection iii states that the driving of the motor vehicle must be in a manner which ‘indicates an intention’ to drive without justification as closes as possible to another vehicle etc. Therefore, this is a mens rea offence pursuant to R. v. Sault Ste Marie (City), (1978, 40 C.C.C. (2d) 353, (SCC). As a result, this Court need not consider whether Mr Bunda has a defence of due diligence. I note that Mr Bunda in any event did not offer such a defence.
[53] Therefore, Mr Bunda did commit an offence under s. 3.8.iii of O.Reg. 455/07.
5: DECISION
[54] Mr Bunda committed an offence under s. 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, as specifically set out in s. 3.8.iii of O.Reg. 455/07.
[55] A conviction will be registered.
Justices and cops are never wrong eh? Because of the conviction you determine there WAS sufficient evidence to find this rider guilty do you? You might as well pay evey ticket up front my friend....cause the cop's evidence is clearly enough for you!
As I said the Justice grossly misrepresented the facts in his / her conclusion!
Officer Morrow testified that he observed the motorcycles from a distance ofto the right of the stopped cars they had to weave to get past the mirrors of the cars.
approximately 50 to 70 metres, as they proceeded on Lancaster. It was only once they stopped
behind the cars at the traffic light that he was able to catch up with them. He described that the
motorcycles were extremely close together. He noted in Exhibit 1 that the front wheel of Mr Bunda’s
motorcycle (second motorcycle but first on right side of the group) was only about 2 feet to the right
of the rear wheel of the first motorcycle. The officer then testified that when the motorcycles passed
Therefore, I accept Officer’s Morrow testimony that Mr Bunda’s front wheel was within 2weave to manoeuvre around their mirrors.
feet of the lead motorcycle, as he travelled down Lancaster Street. I further accept the officer’s
testimony that Mr Bunda was in such close proximity to the cars he passed on the right that he had to
The Justice has made a gross miscalculation and falsely accused the rider of something he did not commit, nor did the cop provide as evidence and indicates the "eroded credibility" of the Justice!
In my view, the actions of Mr Bunda were not consistent with a mere error in judgment.which a reasonable and prudent driver would follow.
His pattern both of driving in close proximity to the lead motorcycle on Lancaster Street coupled
with his passing the cars on the right was consistent with a lack of due care and attention and without
reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway. He departed from the standard of care
There is noooooooo evidence he was too close on lancaster street at all!!! Secondly, how do we go from "prudent" to "stunter"?!?!?! Nothing in between?!?!?! That's simply insane to make that leap! So what is drunk driving or actually causing an accident? --> death penatly?!?!?!
The cop was 50 to 70 meters away, which is way to far to judge the depth of the riders positions. he then states he was able to catch up to them (no distance) is given. He says the front tire was 2 feet to the right of the rear tire of the other bike but again, from a rear view how could he guage depth? He again does not even state the depth of distance between the bikes. He also does not state the distance the bikes were apart from each other as they filtered. There is no evidence that the bikes could not respond at 5 to 15kph!!!!! to a suddenly opened door, which is also an illegal manouver on the part of any car if at first a safety check is not performed!
I repeat the Justice puts all the onus of an opening door on the rider!!! which is incorrect. Secondly the speed that the rider is describing is idle speeds!!!! Are you all seriously telling me, at your idle speeds you are incapable of responding to a door opening? This isn't the door prize here people! You can even completely lock up your front break in a completely ham fisted panic brake and still keep it upright at those speeds!!! And if he was directly beside a door with a kid inside (who wasn't stopped by child locks on some late model car or due to a negligent parent), then the door would simply bump the bikers leg as happens in many a parking lot with minor scratches at best.
Furthermore the justice has an obsurb go at him by stating he broke under the cross and that his distance of 1 second was not maintained and that at some points the physical distance to the rider in front was greater. This DOES NOT IMPLY SPEEDING OR THAT HE LIED!!! The rider said he maintained a 1 second distance, which is 13.5m @ 50kph. If at any point that distance stretched out to 20m+ this DOES NOT IMPLY AN INCREASE IN SPEED. It could imply the 1 second distance stretched to 1.8 second distance WHICH IS ACTUALLY SAFER!!!!
The exact wording of what the rider testisfied to is not recorded, so he may have been stupid enough to say he was never more or less than a second apart. Or he may have said he was at a minimum of 1 second distance. Again, the Justice owes it to the rider to give him the benifit of the doubt as the officer has no proof of speeding and / or unsafe distances, especially from a 70m rear vantage point!
The Justice merely assumes the rider is lying and ALWAYS MAINTED 1 SECOND GAP, therefore at greater than 13.5m physical distance....he must have been speeding. This assumption is unfair on the part of the Justice and is not based on evidence.
There is no thought on the part of the Justice in this case.
172 is entirely unapplicable to what this rider did. Passing "too close" to a vehicle at slow speeds happens every damn day, in normal parking situations (ever make a turn into a parking spot? ever notice the corner of your car comes pretty close to the other car next to you in the spot? Ever park within inches, bumper to bumper, of another car? Oh man throw 172 at everyone in all those cases!), parallel parking on busy streets (when all types of doors can open and pedestrians can pop into the mix). It is absurd to level this charge at the rider.
Might as well nail every car that comes close to a begger at a stop light. The Justice cannot find an unsafe situation but instead imagines one and assumes the fault onto the rider which is a poor rationale to form a verdict.
Might as well charge women in rape cases because they walked somewhere "unsafe" where a rapist could be. Yep strip women of their potential livelihood too (their vehicle, or job) in such matters, and make sure their health insurance screws them for the next 3+ years.
All that being said, how does this stand as precedent?
I was once told that if you win a case it doesn't count as precedent for these reasons:
1) you may have pled not guilty, which means you're not arguing the validity of the law but that it doesn't apply to you in this specific case. meaning that if this rider beat the 172 charge it would not be precedent to stop it from being thrown at any other person again in a similar situation.
2) often when you "win", you haven't actually "won", but rather the case is dropped and the transcripts are not provided. You technically didn't win in this case and you have no proof to use as precedent! Sneaky twats!
So with that in mind it is good to keep a copy of this transcript to highlight the differences between this rider's actions and what you may be involved in when it comes to filtering. Some key points about his case, was
1) his proximity to other riders throughout the observation.
2) his believed (though not convicted) high speeds.
3) having to weave (his handle bars I assume, though the rider denies this. Doesn't matter...Justice thinks he is a liar anyways) to wiggle past the mirrors of the cars (but at what speed???) [ I would argue if he was walking it at that stage it wasn't a safety issue at all, but that seems to have been over looked as a defence]
4) single lane (less space than between 2 lanes)
5) not checking the indicators of all cars to his left (while in a single lane situation)
6) his aggressive or frustrated attitude under examination
7) I'm surprised no mention of elevated exhaust levels substantially minimizes the "surprise" of a car that is being filtered past by a bike. Again the Justice either seems to have excluded certain "norms" or the defendant did a poor job of assuming what the Justice accepts as "norms".
BTW check out this case and tell me if this rider wasn't raped in the 172 case!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...rticle2060004/
Last edited by alaywa; 06-14-2011 at 12:56 PM.
Moderator
When you're passing another vehicle, in a space that is too narrow for it to be done in safety, the onus IS on the person who is doing the passing.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
He drove his bike to the right of vehicles that he was not sure were turning left. End of story.
Ignorance is curable, Apathy not so much, but I don't care, I'll try anyway.
When I drive my car and come up to a red light and I'm proceeding straight, I always stay as far to the left and front of my lane as possible to give another vehicle a chance to drive beside me and make a right turn. Common courtesy. Is the driver who passes me on the right guilty of breaking the law? Stunting,racing?
Thomas Jefferson said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty".
The onus is on the following driver to ensure that you are going left. If you do not have your signal on, move right and he collides with you, it will be his fault.
Look at what happened to the guy on here,who went way right of someone who swerved left and then came back right; he was nailed with careless.
Ignorance is curable, Apathy not so much, but I don't care, I'll try anyway.
You are mistaken, that is not true. The onus is not on the passer to the right to make sure the lead driver is turning to the left IF...
(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction;
a) AND b) do not have to be together! they are seperated by a semi colon which indicates...two independent clauses in a sentence. The semicolon shows that the ideas in the two clauses are related: “Jack really didn't mind being left without a car; he had the house to himself.” oooor
used to indicate a major division in a sentence where a more distinct separation is felt between clauses or items on a list than is indicated by a comma, as between the two clauses of a compound sentence.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicol...lon_in_English
and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semicolon
As I have stated many times, if you are foolish or confused enough to read that both a) AND b) must be in use together than any and all passing to the right in any condition is illegal! Meaning, even if you are in a lane beside someone in the left lane, you CANNOT pass them if their turn signal is not indicating a left turn! THIS IS AN ABSURD READING OF 150 THAT NONE OF YOU CAN AGREE TO!
Let's read it again shall we, with "and" in place of ";" and you will see how absurd it sounds.
150. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and,
(a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn AND
(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction;
Good luck passing anyone on the right ever again if this is how you read 150!!!!
Furthermore:
172:... driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway"
It must be proved the intention is to drive as close as possible (i.e. A DAMN STUNT). If the intention was to pass with as much room as possible, the intention is NOT A STUNT!!!! The intention of the rider in this case was to PASS, not perform a stunt, and this is a clear abuse of the law as the Justice doesn't even attempt to clarify the intention of the rider at any point at all!!!
Last edited by alaywa; 06-14-2011 at 01:26 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks