Who has beat or fought HTA 172(1) Bill 203

[g4getmoney]

I have a court date approaching, where I will be taking on a stunt driving - driving too close charge under this new law, and I was wondering if any of you out there have already been through a court date regarding this charge, and more importantly, how many have beat the bill thus far? What is your story and how did you do it?

The 50+ is also welcomed, but I'm more interested in experiences regarding the stunt driving charge.

Cheers.

[Metastable]

All I can say is this.
- Ask for disclosure if you haven't yet. That is what they will be using against you. Be thorough when asking for that. If they have any video, that would be good too.
- I STRONGLY suggest you talk to Red Line about this or a full on lawyer if you haven't.

And best of luck as well!!!!

[mat2312]

I have a court date approaching, where I will be taking on a stunt driving - driving too close charge under this new law, and I was wondering if any of you out there have already been through a court date regarding this charge, and more importantly, how many have beat the bill thus far? What is your story and how did you do it?

The 50+ is also welcomed, but I'm more interested in experiences regarding the stunt driving charge.

Cheers.

you got a 203 for driving too close? that's really really weak


If that's the case, half the public needs to have their vehicles impounded.

[g4getmoney]

It was in October of last year, 15 days after the law's implementation, and when the officer told me what I was charged with and the consequences, I nearly fainted. I actually completely got sick to my stomach.

I got full disclosure and my representative has a copy and has analyzed it and found some grounds to challenge it on, but I didn't help the situation by being confrontational with the cop and putting my helmet on his hood and feet on the fender of his car and head in my lap, in disappointment. His wording of the situation " The accused then proceeded to SMASH his helmet on the hood of the cruiser and placed his feet on the fender" I was lane splitting on the DVP at 5pm in dead stopped traffic, doing maybe 20-30km/h at max, and I got screwed hard, long, and painfully.

I have a parallalegal and that's all I can seriously afford, but he has a good track record and seems to have found some little loophole, I really hope the judge feels for me and lets me off, because as you said, it's a weeaaaakkkk charge and I think I've more than paid for my driving too close lesson by losing my bike, lic, and a juicy $965 impound fee.

Now I'm bikeless and very nervous as to how my case goes, because my situation has greatly improved from last year and my finances aren't so tight anymore, so I can afford a nicer bike, I would use some extra cash to upgrade my legal rep, but at this point it's too late, my court date is approx T-20 days.

A little wordy, but I can't sleep and I had to talk to somebody, the computer is like my buddies, nobody listens to me, lol.

you got a 203 for driving too close? that's really really weak


If that's the case, half the public needs to have their vehicles impounded.

[scarface]

It was in October of last year, 15 days after the law's implementation, and when the officer told me what I was charged with and the consequences, I nearly fainted. I actually completely got sick to my stomach.

I got full disclosure and my representative has a copy and has analyzed it and found some grounds to challenge it on, but I didn't help the situation by being confrontational with the cop and putting my helmet on his hood and feet on the fender of his car and head in my lap, in disappointment. His wording of the situation " The accused then proceeded to SMASH his helmet on the hood of the cruiser and placed his feet on the fender" I was lane splitting on the DVP at 5pm in dead stopped traffic, doing maybe 20-30km/h at max, and I got screwed hard, long, and painfully.

I have a parallalegal and that's all I can seriously afford, but he has a good track record and seems to have found some little loophole, I really hope the judge feels for me and lets me off, because as you said, it's a weeaaaakkkk charge and I think I've more than paid for my driving too close lesson by losing my bike, lic, and a juicy $965 impound fee.

Now I'm bikeless and very nervous as to how my case goes, because my situation has greatly improved from last year and my finances aren't so tight anymore, so I can afford a nicer bike, I would use some extra cash to upgrade my legal rep, but at this point it's too late, my court date is approx T-20 days.

A little wordy, but I can't sleep and I had to talk to somebody, the computer is like my buddies, nobody listens to me, lol.

they will most likely reduce the charge for you.

[weldingglover]

I'm under the 172 act to, still going to court your impound fee was large compared to mine, around 400 bucks mine was 7 1/2 days,
i'm just mad that the impound fee's are non refundable , this is a joke thats all i got to say.

[mat2312]

How could one person's impound fees be $400 and the other's $900 for the same duration....something is wrong.




so, you got your bike impounded for lane splitting? I know its illegal but I didn't think it was STUNTING. So every rider who does it in California is stunting?

[weldingglover]

Maybe Juristiction but still a joke, mine wasn't for lane splitting, but i am under section 172.

different towing comapny fee's etc.

but i was very anal about how they towed my bike, i told the cop a few times want me to put it in my truck and let my buddy drive it the impound oh yeah and another advice!

you have the right ot remain silent!

I walked away and said nothing to the cop. don't say Shizzle

[FiReSTaRT]

The less you give'em the less of a case they've got. This goes for any interaction with cops unless you're reporting a crime, in which case the opposite applies, to encourage them to do what they used to do before they became a revenue-generating operation.

[Rob MacLennan]

How could one person's impound fees be $400 and the other's $900 for the same duration....something is wrong.

so, you got your bike impounded for lane splitting? I know its illegal but I didn't think it was STUNTING. So every rider who does it in California is stunting?

Likely got him on the "intention to outdistance" clause of 203. The same thing can be used on you, if you pass someone at well over the speed limit.

**EDIT** Sorry, it was obviously the "passing closely" thing.

[g4getmoney]

Hey Rob, I would accept a little more responsibility had I "changed lanes at speeds above teh marked limit" or whatever the wording is, but I was doing 20-30km/h in traffic hour, so I Was going no where near the speed limit, and lane splitting at full speed on DVP would be insanity, not a risk I would take. I don't know if that is a point worth exploring in court.

Likely got him on the "intention to outdistance" clause of 203. The same thing can be used on you, if you pass someone at well over the speed limit.

**EDIT** Sorry, it was obviously the "passing closely" thing.

[Metastable]

I don't think the courts will look at this in a pretty way, but you can always try to approach it from the:

- There is nothing that specifically states that lane splitting is illegal and that it is ridiculous that a charge like this was handed out when it is perfectly legal AND ENCOURAGED to do so in some North American jurisdictions.... and that you think it was safer for you to do so, since you can't get rear ended and at those speeds there was no physical harm to anyone esle. Plus that the charges and punishment do not fit the actions taken by you.... you can try to paint the picture of a cop that didn't/doesn't understand the spirt of the law as well.

On the other hand, that might backfire depending how obtuse the JofP might be.

[Rob MacLennan]

Hey Rob, I would accept a little more responsibility had I "changed lanes at speeds above teh marked limit" or whatever the wording is, but I was doing 20-30km/h in traffic hour, so I Was going no where near the speed limit, and lane splitting at full speed on DVP would be insanity, not a risk I would take. I don't know if that is a point worth exploring in court.

Do you have the specific wording of what they charged you with handy? If it was:

4. Driving two or more motor vehicles side by side or in proximity to each other, where one of the motor vehicles occupies a lane of traffic or other portion of the highway intended for use by oncoming traffic for a period of time that is longer than is reasonably required to pass another motor vehicle.

... then your obvious defence is that you were not travelling in the oncoming traffic lane.

If it was this one:

2. (1) For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "race" and "contest" include any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:
3. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by, iii. repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity to other vehicles so as to advance through the ordinary flow of traffic while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 2 (1).

... then the equally obvious defence is that you were not travelling at markedly above the lawful rate of speed, but rather well below it. you have to be careful of this section though:

"marked departure from the lawful rate of speed" means a rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 2 (2).

[FiReSTaRT]

Well 20-30 is a marked departure from the speed limit, just the other way. Knowing our court system, I wouldn't be surprised if they interpreted it that way.
However, Rob is giving you 2 good avenues of defense. If they nail you on the technicality I just mention, you have good grounds for appeal.
Make sure you come in armed with some official piece of paper showing that the average speed of traffic on that section of the highway at that time is at a near-standstill. The cop can still lie and say he clocked you going _xxx_ over the limit.

[Rob MacLennan]

Well 20-30 is a marked departure from the speed limit, just the other way. Knowing our court system, I wouldn't be surprised if they interpreted it that way.
However, Rob is giving you 2 good avenues of defense. If they nail you on the technicality I just mention, you have good grounds for appeal.
Make sure you come in armed with some official piece of paper showing that the average speed of traffic on that section of the highway at that time is at a near-standstill. The cop can still lie and say he clocked you going _xxx_ over the limit.

Going more slowly than the listed speed limit would permit greater, not lesser ability to deal with changing road conditions. For this reason it should not be an issue. What might be, is if in the officer's judgement a speed of 20 to 30 Kmh was excessive for the conditions, even with virtually stopped traffic. The JP might agree. That's why you don't mention it first while trying to defend yourself from such a charge. You have to show doubt toward the charge. you don't have to prove yourself innocent.

[Avi Singh]

Was this charge the result of an accident?

[Rob MacLennan]

Was this charge the result of an accident?

If it was, then my advice is of no use.

[g4getmoney]

Rob, thank you for the advice, it was the second option that I was charged with I am assuming, given that on the ticket the following was written in the Did commit the offence of: "Stunt Driving - Drive Too Close"

No Ravi, the charge was not due to an accident or any collision etc.

Was this charge the result of an accident?

[Ash]

They got you under this clause:

8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by

iii) 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

[Rob MacLennan]

They got you under this clause:

That's a possibility but if he was splitting right down the middle between the vehicles, then he was not travelling "as close as possible" to the other vehicles. He isn't guilty of "driving as close as possible to another vehicle" if he was keeping maximum possible distance while doing as he was.

The intent of that portion of the law is to penalize people who take near misses at others in an attempt to scare them.