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."

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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!

[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.

[EngineerJoe]

^ Depending on the recording device used, the crown may also have to prove WHEN the violation occurred (e.g. before vs. after HTA 172 came into effect). If it's obvious you're on a 2012 R6 or you're using a Go Pro Hero 2, it'll be an easy case.

If you draw attention to yourself, you're asking for trouble. The crown can bring charges against you, and whether or not it will stick, it'll still be a hassle that you won't want to deal with.

[Rob MacLennan]

^ Depending on the recording device used, the crown may also have to prove WHEN the violation occurred (e.g. before vs. after HTA 172 came into effect). If it's obvious you're on a 2012 R6 or you're using a Go Pro Hero 2, it'll be an easy case.

If you draw attention to yourself, you're asking for trouble. The crown can bring charges against you, and whether or not it will stick, it'll still be a hassle that you won't want to deal with.

If they can lay their hands on the original video, then the embedded data might well give them all that they would need.

[vkhamphi]

If they can lay their hands on the original video, then the embedded data might well give them all that they would need.

Do the new GoPro cameras have accurate embedded data? My old GoPro camera always had 1970 as the year.

[bikermahn]

They do have to prove you were going as fast as the speedometer says, but that doesn't say they can't give you a very hard time about it...

Now if your insurance provider was made aware of this, say after you had an accident they probably could use this as evidence to deny your claim. Showing you as a reckless driver.... To my knowledge they don't really need a good reason to drop you, or terminate your insurance, but then you've got to answer that question YES to "have you ever had insurance cancelled..."

[Tango5]

Do the new GoPro cameras have accurate embedded data? My old GoPro camera always had 1970 as the year.

Mine maintains date and time and I think camera model, but other than that I am not sure that there is any other meta data embedded in the file. As far as I know video does not have a metadata standard like JPEG does for example.

[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

[EngineerJoe]

If they can lay their hands on the original video, then the embedded data might well give them all that they would need.

True, but they would need a warrant to get a copy of the original video.

[OMGSelenaGomez]

When posting a riding video anywhere on the internet, remember these rules (really more common sense):

1 - Origin / final destination is NEVER your residence
2 -Camera is mounted so that your bike cannot be singled out
3 - If the cops do trace the video back to you,
1) They have to prove that it was the bike that you own that committed the offense
2) They have to prove who the rider was

On point 3, starbucks and other wireless hotspots are your friend.

If you decide to use your voice in any of your videos, you can use audacity to change your voice. A similar application of this is to use audacity to change the noise your bike makes to further make your bike indistinguishable