Should online video result in HTA related charges?

[Tango5]

Hypothetically speaking; say I post a video online in which my speedometer is clearly visible, and from time to time in this same video so is the speed limit on signs posted along the roadway. Has anyone heard of someone being charged with speeding as a result of the video evidence posted? I think there would be some challenges in bringing charges solely on video evidence, but in a world where Bill C30 can be proposed, who knows what the future holds? and once the videos are out there you can't take them back.

As a new owner of a Go Pro HD I was just wondering if this is a real risk? Should this scenario be a consideration when determining camera placement, or am I just a nervous nellie?

[Brian P]

Think long and hard before publicly incriminating yourself in any way. Doesn't matter whether Facebook, Youtube, or right here.

For the most part, the police have more things on their plate to do, than scour Youtube for evidence of someone going 10 km/h over a posted speed limit, something that they could very easily do and in a way much easier to prove in court simply by taking their fancy radar gizmo to any public road you care to name. But there have been cases where evidence of gross violations have been fished out of the internet and contributed to the prosecution's case against someone.

I wouldn't make public any video made on public roads with the speedo visible and showing a violation, nor of wheelies or stunts on public roads, nor showing plainly-visible gross violations regardless of the speedometer being visible or not.

Rule of thumb applies: "Never write on the internet, anything that you wouldn't be comfortable shouting out in public in front of city hall."

[AF4iK]

Completely agree with Brian. I've heard of cases where people have incriminated themselves by posting stuff online. But playing along with the challenges of charging you...

I think the biggest thing the crown would have to prove is that it's you breaking the law in the video. In order to do that they'd have to obtain the identity of user 'Tango5' which would probably involve "asking" GTAM or it's host for your activity history so that they can get a list of the IP addresses associated with your logins. From the IP they can trace and identify your ISP and then "ask" them to reveal your account info (assuming you're not using a proxy or obfuscating your point of origin in some way). This is assuming they've obtained the legal rights to do so of course.

Now that they know who you are, they still have to confirm that the rider in the video is actually you and not someone else (maybe it's someone else on your bike or maybe you just re-posted a video of some other bike from youtube?). They'll have to start scrubbing the video for evidence. If any part of your bike or body appears in the video it'll serve as a clue. If your voice is recorded in the video you're more or less screwed. If your property or people you know appear/can-be-heard in the video it can be used against you. If they see that you passed a traffic camera and obtain a second recording of you from a different angle you're pretty screwed. If they get a warrant to search your house and find a camcorder that matches up to the video's metadata it'll really hurt your case unless you can prove you were some place far away at the time the video was recorded.

They will also scour your posts and online presence for corroborating evidence to build a case against you. Maybe you boast about similar stunts here on GTAM, FB, email, etc... or post something stupid like "hey guys check out how fast I was riding on the 400 after I wheelied in front of OPP and ****** on their windshield!" Or maybe someone else says you did.

If by now they can't prove that it was you in the video and they haven't yet contacted you directly, they could also put you under surveillance and nail you if you even tip toe over the line. Not that I think any of this is likely to happen unless you committed something heinous. But if you must upload the video and want to cover your @$$ then you'll have to plan it like a heist.

[DOHC1]

http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDispla...7&archive=true
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/arti...about-speeding

[psycho44]

bikes' speedometers are known to be inaccurate to about 10% of the actual speed. If you can prove the speedometer wasn't calibrated properly would the ticket get thrown out?

[Brian P]

bikes' speedometers are known to be inaccurate to about 10% of the actual speed. If you can prove the speedometer wasn't calibrated properly would the ticket get thrown out?

Technically, the crown would have to prove the speed by some other means. But still, if your speedo shows 170 km/h and the speed limit sign shows 50, all they have to prove is that you were doing more than 100 and your goose is cooked as far as HTA 172 is concerned, and that doesn't require precision knowledge of the exact speed. Keep in mind that the time it takes to pass between any identifiable landmarks (or the pavement markings that they use for this very purpose when measuring speed by airplane) allows the average speed to be calculated between those landmarks if the distance between the landmarks is known (i.e. someone goes out and measures it).

The amount of work this entails, plus the difficulties of proving who was operating the vehicle and where and when, mean that this isn't likely to happen for your normal everyday 120 in a 100 zone on the 401. If the cops want to write a ticket like that, it's easier for them to just go out and write one using radar evidence.

But if something serious happens involving you, and there's a video record showing you misbehaving ... that's bad.

[toddb]

bikes' speedometers are known to be inaccurate to about 10% of the actual speed. If you can prove the speedometer wasn't calibrated properly would the ticket get thrown out?

How sure are you about this?
http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum...ption-selected
Have you experienced a ticket getting tossed because of documented proof the Speedo was out?
Mine was because of the wrong tire size.

[iFly55]

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/arti...about-speeding

just read the article

looks like the charges were dropped, but not without consequences

you still have to pay an arm & leg for a lawyer

and lets think about your future? especially if notable papers like thestar have your full name plastered all over an article about stunting; i'm sure your prospect of getting proper employment is a great one
________

the problem i see with video evidence is that you can't determine the exact date the offence was committed

when you get arraigned, don't they have to read which date you committed the offence?
________

anywho they can still tow your bike/car for 7-days for s172 and cause you a world of hurt with that alone

[OpenGambit]

Hypothetically speaking; say I post a video online in which my speedometer is clearly visible, and from time to time in this same video so is the speed limit on signs posted along the roadway. Has anyone heard of someone being charged with speeding as a result of the video evidence posted? I think there would be some challenges in bringing charges solely on video evidence, but in a world where Bill C30 can be proposed, who knows what the future holds? and once the videos are out there you can't take them back.

As a new owner of a Go Pro HD I was just wondering if this is a real risk? Should this scenario be a consideration when determining camera placement, or am I just a nervous nellie?

Do they have the legal authority to do it, the answer is yes.

Would they bother? well I have never heard of it actually happening, nor have I seen any cases as a result of it.

[Rob MacLennan]

Hypothetically speaking; say I post a video online in which my speedometer is clearly visible, and from time to time in this same video so is the speed limit on signs posted along the roadway. Has anyone heard of someone being charged with speeding as a result of the video evidence posted? I think there would be some challenges in bringing charges solely on video evidence, but in a world where Bill C30 can be proposed, who knows what the future holds? and once the videos are out there you can't take them back.

As a new owner of a Go Pro HD I was just wondering if this is a real risk? Should this scenario be a consideration when determining camera placement, or am I just a nervous nellie?

There's nothing hypothetical about it; they can and have done so. The sort of difficulty that they have in doing so will generally only result in it happening with serious charges, such as HTA 172 or criminal charges, but doesn't have to be limited to such.

DOHC1 gave you one example of someone convicted under the HTA, after posting online. There have been many stories of teens charged, after posting assault videos on Youtube. When you post something online, it's there forever.

[Tango5]

Yeah you all have confirmed what I was thinking. What made me start this discussion is that youtube and various forums are littered with this kind of self incriminating "evidence" it seems so commonplace that It's easy to forget what the ramifications can be, I mean this stuff is everywhere. I was looking for a place to mount my camera on the bike and it occured to me that this is not a trivial activity. It's possible that even if you never make the vids public, as long as you keep them, they can come back to haunt you.

The Solution? Be an absolute model citizen if you're going to record?

[Rob MacLennan]

Yeah you all have confirmed what I was thinking. What made me start this discussion is that youtube and various forums are littered with this kind of self incriminating "evidence" it seems so commonplace that It's easy to forget what the ramifications can be, I mean this stuff is everywhere. I was looking for a place to mount my camera on the bike and it occured to me that this is not a trivial activity. It's possible that even if you never make the vids public, as long as you keep them, they can come back to haunt you.

The Solution? Be an absolute model citizen if you're going to record?

Don't mount the camera so that your instruments are in-frame. My forward camera is mounted on the right mirror stalk and only shows the right turn signal indicator.

Don't post video of yourself being a choad. You're just asking for trouble, when you do that.

[Baggsy]

It could get worse. Your boss, wife, or mommy could see it. Then you'd be in BIG trouble mister!

[nobbie48]

Go to the Ragu dashcam incident and see what happens when a video goes viral. I doubt that the cops waste their time looking at youtube videos but if someone points one out, who knows.
Should you ever get involved in something serious, any form of public information could be used to limit your defense.

[gjones4487]

Yes, you could be charged, if the speed fast enough even arrested. There was a video on youtube of a ninja on a highway in ontario and an investigation was put forth to apprehend the guy, doing 260kph(displayed) on a 100kph highway. And yes the video is useable in court.. In otherwords if your going to speed in your video, don't show the speedo, or atleast block it out before you post it. Oh and don't make it obvious what road your on .. Lol
Cheers,
Geoff

[toysareforboys]

bikes' speedometers are known to be inaccurate to about 10% of the actual speed. If you can prove the speedometer wasn't calibrated properly would the ticket get thrown out?

The charge is speeding, the "fine" is the speed. If you were doing 110 in a 100 than you can say the 10% inaccuracy means you weren't breaking the law (speeding). If you were doing 115 in a 100 they'll maybe lower it to 5 over but it'll be a far stretch to say you "weren't speeding".

In my court case recently they used one of my onboard videos (with my permission). It didn't show my speed, but showed my tach, etc. The crown was trying to say I was doing more than the 20km/h "recommended" ramp speed (not in and of itself a crime, but to add to my "careless driving"), but when taking into account my -1/+3 sprocket setup (had a receipt dated two weeks prior to the accident for the installation of the sprockets with my VIN# on it), using the website http://www.gearingcommander.com right in court I was able to prove, using RPM's and gear, with a -1/+3 I was doing 18kph

The crown freaked and wanted to get my -1/+3 receipt thrown out, as there was no proof it was installed on the bike at the time of the accident. The judge said because the VIN# was on the receipt, it was the crowns duty to prove it had been changed since the state it was in two weeks prior to the accident woot

-Jamie M.

[Burnz]

i know this is an old thread but i have a good friend of mine with a ninja 636 and he posted a video on youtube called ninja 636 on 407 and in that video he was topping out the bike... only the speedo was visible and a few weeks later he received a phone call from opp about the video and they said he has to turn himself in or they will come arrest him... after a really long court process and a lot of $$$$ on lawyers he got off but dont count on that being the case all the time!.. a lot of you guys will be surprised the amount of cops that watch facebook and youtube for this kind of videos and go after the authors!!!!!!!!!

[toysareforboys]

i know this is an old thread but i have a good friend of mine with a ninja 636 and he posted a video on youtube called ninja 636 on 407 and in that video he was topping out the bike... only the speedo was visible and a few weeks later he received a phone call from opp about the video and they said he has to turn himself in or they will come arrest him... after a really long court process and a lot of $$$$ on lawyers he got off but dont count on that being the case all the time!.. a lot of you guys will be surprised the amount of cops that watch facebook and youtube for this kind of videos and go after the authors!!!!!!!!!

Is the vid still up? Couldn't find it. PM me if it's a private link

-Jamie M.

[awyala]

Hypothetically speaking; say I post a video online in which my speedometer is clearly visible, and from time to time in this same video so is the speed limit on signs posted along the roadway. Has anyone heard of someone being charged with speeding as a result of the video evidence posted? I think there would be some challenges in bringing charges solely on video evidence, but in a world where Bill C30 can be proposed, who knows what the future holds? and once the videos are out there you can't take them back.

As a new owner of a Go Pro HD I was just wondering if this is a real risk? Should this scenario be a consideration when determining camera placement, or am I just a nervous nellie?

Yes for certain they can nail you! This has happened more than twice in the UK. The rider filmed themselves riding to their home door; cops just showed up and laid charges.....for ALL offences recorded! Do some research on UK recording self incrimination.

UK Case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ts-130mph.html

Toronto Case (of simply online bragging!!!)
http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDispla...true&e=2706397

I can't find the one where the cops ID'ed the rider through the video of the guy riding to his door. I read it in a biker newspaper about 5 years back in the UK.

I also read that another notorious rider in a neighbourhood used different bikes to wheelie through speed cameras (with a concealed plate). The cops made a mission of documenting footage of the rider over a year, on different bikes in different gear, and ended up tracking him and convicting based on gear alone!!! They built a profile of the rider and his various bikes and gear and nabbed him on the road one day in one of his sets of gear.

Don't doubt for a second that even a cop with a hard on for bikers doesn't spend part of their off-time watching you tube offending videos!

And FFS don't brag or state anything you have done illegally, unless you're talkin' smack at a Timmy's parking lot and you know who you're talking to!