Failing to stop | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Failing to stop

One member here got stunt charge for switching lanes....

I kind of have the same sentiment as backmarkerducati.... Mature, law abiding, very little interaction with cops, but my opinion of them isn't completely positive. Guess it like all things, the bad apples poison the barrel.
 
has anyone or group tried to take on 172 as even if your found not guilty your still out the fines and impound/towing?
 
I was going to post this on one of the other threads, but I thought it would be better if it had it's own.

From what I've seen, if a motorcyclist wants to run from the police, they will, and they will get away. They are faster than anything the police have, except for a radio, but we don't always have another car waiting ahead. If a rider is 100% committed to running, they are gone.

Last year I tried to stop a young man on an R6 who was cornered on a dead end road. We squared off and he rode right past me to get back to the highway, where he promptly took off at high speed. I didn't follow. Since I had some other investigative leads, I was able to show up at his house and the matter ended in criminal charges. One month later, he was followed by a police helicopter doing the same thing, and was arrested again, this time held for bail. He wasn't a bad kid but definitely made some bad choices. I would tend to think that most officers see someone that runs as someone who has a real reason to run, ie. stolen bike, wanted person, etc. The real danger that I'm seeing is that motorcyclists are running for much smaller reasons, and are either risking their own safety or other people's, in their escape.

Can we blame 172 for all of this? Would those that chose to run for a 172 charge run for a plate infraction? Would you run because your insurance slip was out of date? Where is the line in the sand that makes you decide not to stop for police?
Only due to 172 IF (disclaimer) I would ever consider

Same with many people i know
 
Way too late for that. Some challenges were made, they went nowhere. The only change that was made is that due to the possibility of jail time, it was changed between "strict liability" and "absolute liability" - not being a lawyer, I don't know which one is which - but the end result is that the defences of "due diligence" and "necessity" can be accepted. Good luck with that.
 
I think only the +50, weaving through traffic or lane splitting would be considered stunt. The others are urban myths.

It would be super swell if that was spelled out in a legal document somewhere
 
HTA 172, WITHOUT the conviction (i.e. even if you come out of court all charges dropped)
will leave you with a 7 day suspension on your license (insurance will bury you). Also every time you get pulled over from then on, the cop will see that you've had a 7 day license suspension…hence prejudice right there.
will cost legal fees, upwards to $5000 (especially if you're hiring proper representation considering the how your life will be over if convicted)
approx $2000 for towing and impound. also depending on where the police seize your private property (unconstitutionally) you will have to figure out a way to get home. they will leave you stranded on the highway.

also, consider what the 7 days of no license means regarding work, household and school.

If convicted:
upwards of $10 000 plus victim surplus charges etc..
30 day license suspension
6 demerit points (meaning if you get even 2 minor tickets over next 2 years you will face an interview or mandatory license suspension having accumulated 9+ demerit points in total)

Insurance will drop you. will have to go to facility paying upwards of $5000-$10 000 for insurance per year, PER vehicle.
and every time you get pulled over it will automatic harassment and bullying because it will be on your record.
 
OK, this law is big brother maxed out, actaully very scary just reading about 172, hope BC is not as strict, seems absolutely ridicoulous to say the least..
now see why if cop has a bad day your day will get much worse also..

So if this law is so vague is it not likely easy to challenge in court, but can see the damage is done before in a court case, ridicoulous.

Yes, you can challenge it in court and 90% of the time get off the original charges by having them reduced.

Remember your thread talking **** about 250's, well I got a stunting charge (OVER 50 over, on the HIGHWAY!!). I had it reduced to 49 over which was just a 'minor' ticket as far as insurance is concerned so I got off easy...

Getting off easy was:

800 bucks for the impound, luckily I was in rural area, don't even want to know what city rates are, and a bike is roughly half the price of a car per day..
800 for Paralegal
420ish for the ticket

so $2020, now you can add HST and their ******** victim surcharge fees. That was getting off EASY, I was a 23 year old student...not some rich **** who could just take it and be fine.

Funny thing is, had I been on a supersport I'd have ran. Little would I have known that'd I'd probably be ****ed in the *** either way because they were tracking me with a Cessna...
 
Last edited:
In other words, those who know or think they are going to get stuck with a hta172 charge if they stop, and know they can get away, will most probably run if they know how much it'll cost them in the long run even if not found guilty.

Especially those in debt or low on $.
 
OK, this law is big brother maxed out, actaully very scary just reading about 172, hope BC is not as strict, seems absolutely ridicoulous to say the least..
now see why if cop has a bad day your day will get much worse also..

So if this law is so vague is it not likely easy to challenge in court, but can see the damage is done before in a court case, ridicoulous.

Yes, you can challenge it in court and 90% of the time get off the original charges by having them reduced.

Remember your thread talking **** about 250's, well I got a stunting charge (OVER 50 over, on the HIGHWAY!!). I had it reduced to 49 over which was still a 'minor' ticket as far as insurance is concerned so I got off easy...

Getting off easy was:

800 bucks for the impound, luckily I was in rural area, don't even want to know what city rates are, and a bike is roughly half the price of a car per day..
800 for Paralegal
420ish for the ticket

so $2220, now you can add HST and their ******** victim surcharge fees. That was getting off EASY, I was a 23 year old student...not some rich **** who could just take it and be fine.

Funny thing, is had I been on a supersport I'd have ran. Little would I have known that'd I'd probably be ****ed in the *** either way because they were tracking me with a Cessna...
 
OK, this law is big brother maxed out, actaully very scary just reading about 172, hope BC is not as strict, seems absolutely ridicoulous to say the least..
now see why if cop has a bad day your day will get much worse also..

So if this law is so vague is it not likely easy to challenge in court, but can see the damage is done before in a court case, ridicoulous.

Yes, you can challenge it in court and 90% of the time get off the original charges by having them reduced.

Remember your thread talking **** about 250's, well I got a stunting charge (OVER 50 over, on the HIGHWAY!!). I had it reduced to 49 over which was still a 'minor' ticket as far as insurance is concerned so I got off easy...

Getting off easy was:

800 bucks for the impound, luckily I was in rural area, don't even want to know what city rates are, and a bike is roughly half the price of a car per day..
800 for Paralegal
420ish for the ticket

so $2220, now you can add HST and their ******** victim surcharge fees. That was getting off EASY, I was a 23 year old student...not some rich **** who could just take it and be fine.

Funny thing, is had I been on a supersport I'd have ran. Little would I have known that'd I'd probably be ****ed in the *** either way because they were tracking me with a Cessna...
 
You should read the actual act before you spout off......

Here you go:

Definition, "stunt"
3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "stunt" includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:
1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.
3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it.
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.
5. Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.
6. Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver's seat.
7. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit.
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,
i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,
ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver's sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,
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, or
iv. making a left turn where,
(A) the driver is stopped at an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal system in response to a circular red indication;
(B) at least one vehicle facing the opposite direction is similarly stopped in response to a circular red indication; and
(C) the driver executes the left turn immediately before or after the system shows only a circular green indication in both directions and in a manner that indicates an intention to complete or attempt to complete the left turn before the vehicle facing the opposite direction is able to proceed straight through the intersection in response to the circular green indication facing that vehicle. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 3.


I've read the Act. And the Regs, many times. So where do you see that it doesn't allow you to stand up? Or not hang on to the handlebars? Or do a burnout? Not saying the burnout isn't illegal, but it's no stunt unless you start drifting. For the record, those are the definitions of the word "stunt". There are also definitions of the word "race". Here they are too:

Definition, "race" and "contest"
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:
1. Driving two or more motor vehicles at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed and in a manner that indicates the drivers of the motor vehicles are engaged in a competition.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to chase another motor vehicle.
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,
i. driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed,
ii. outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed, or
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).
 
OK, this law is big brother maxed out, actaully very scary just reading about 172, hope BC is not as strict, seems absolutely ridicoulous to say the least..
now see why if cop has a bad day your day will get much worse also..

So if this law is so vague is it not likely easy to challenge in court, but can see the damage is done before in a court case, ridicoulous.

Is this a bad law?? I think it is, for the most part. But I think your also getting a bit of a skewed perspective in this thread. I have been stopped more than a couple of times on my bike and in my cage. Not all have resulted in a ticket of any kind, (likely a majority were warnings only). But if someone, (such as yourself), from a different province were to base their knowledge on this thread and the replies, one would assume that virtually every time police stop someone it results in a HTA 172 charge. This is far from the case. Most of the people here have been stopped and a VERY small minority got a 172.

Now maybe it is because I ride responsibility but I have not been threatened, nor intimidated, nor had a cop utter 172 to me. I have received tickets, (which I generally contest and more times then not I have a winning percentage), of the last 6 tickets spread over more than a decade. I have had one conviction, and that is the only ticket I didn't contest, (GF thought she was being "nice" and paid it before I sent it in asking for early resolution and eventually trial).

I agree that if someone was doing something that "might" result in a 172 the probability of them eluding is much higher. But as has been pointed out the brain really isn't fully capable of understanding the concept of risk until after 25. I also find it interesting that so many agree with this concept and think, it is an explanation as to why the rider isn't as guilty. Yet if a 23 year old cop pulls a stupid move they would be the first to jump on him/her. They are also a human being just because they wear a uniform doesn't mean their brain is fully developed either.
.
I know when I was a 21 year old copper I made PLENTY of bone headed moves, that I wouldn't consider as I aged..lol
 
Last edited:
Is this a bad law?? I think it is, for the most part. But I think your also getting a bit of a skewed perspective in this thread. I have been stopped more than a couple of times on my bike and in my cage. Not all have resulted in a ticket of any kind, (likely a majority were warnings only). But if someone, (such as yourself), from a different province were to base their knowledge on this thread and the relies, one would assume that virtually every time police stop someone it results in a HTA 172 charge. This is far from the case.
The problem is "one would assume that virtually every time police stop someone it could result in a HTA 172 charge". The rest of your comments were fair IMHO.

I'veSo whe read the Act. And the Regs, many times. re do you see that it doesn't allow you to stand up?
o.reg 455 3.(6)

Or not hang on to the handlebars?
o.reg 455 3.( 8 ) (first part before the 'or')

Or do a burnout?
o.reg 455 3.(2) or o.reg 455 3.( 8 ) (first part before the 'or')

Having done every high school english class twice (dyslexic), i can say your reading comprehension meets or exceeds the standard.
all of these are enough to give a 172 charge but not necessarily a conviction. - but that doesn't matter. All of these will give a road side suspension, tow, impound etc. without due process.


2nd edit:
@bikecop, i really hope what you can take away from this is the unreal loss of freedom we've sustained. due process is something we canadians hold dear, and it has been taken away through sloppy legislation, poor interpretation, and zealous application, of a law which contravenes something this country was founded on.

add to this the behaviors of select law enforcement officers (g20 summit / mahoney-bruer) and were left with a powder keg approaching the levels last seen just before the '92 LA riots.
 
Last edited:
Here you go:

Definition, "stunt"
3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "stunt" includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:
1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.
3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it.
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.
5. Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.
6. Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver's seat.
7. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit.
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,
i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,
ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver's sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,
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, or
iv. making a left turn where,
(A) the driver is stopped at an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal system in response to a circular red indication;
(B) at least one vehicle facing the opposite direction is similarly stopped in response to a circular red indication; and
(C) the driver executes the left turn immediately before or after the system shows only a circular green indication in both directions and in a manner that indicates an intention to complete or attempt to complete the left turn before the vehicle facing the opposite direction is able to proceed straight through the intersection in response to the circular green indication facing that vehicle. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 3.


I've read the Act. And the Regs, many times. So where do you see that it doesn't allow you to stand up? Or not hang on to the handlebars? Or do a burnout? Not saying the burnout isn't illegal, but it's no stunt unless you start drifting. For the record, those are the definitions of the word "stunt". There are also definitions of the word "race". Here they are too:

Definition, "race" and "contest"
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:
1. Driving two or more motor vehicles at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed and in a manner that indicates the drivers of the motor vehicles are engaged in a competition.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to chase another motor vehicle.
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,
i. driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed,
ii. outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed, or
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).



#2 Burnout, not to many vehicles don't kick to the side while doing a burnout.

#6 Riding while standing on pegs.

And not to mention that there's a whole lot of an officer's interpretation of what a person's intentions are.

Personally I'm not bent out of shape about what is considered a 172 infraction, most of the stuff is valid although poorly written. My chief complaint is that it totally stomps on our right to a trial before punishment. You can suspend license's, impound vehicles and fine to your hearts content... after the person has had they're day in court not before.
 
Just like in the case of terrorism would it be in bad form to ask How did we get here? Yes, the problems with 172 are well documented and I could well see myself a victim of it. I shudder at the thought. We should also consider ourselves victims of that small (but growing?) percentage of bad actors who prompt the halls of power into going down the road of "Oh, ya? you want to amp it up on the public roads well watch this!" Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Now we're left splitting hairs about standing on pegs and such. Thanks.

Maybe we should test that theory. Every body hacksaw their mufflers off. I wonder what the saturation point is on that? Are we there yet? What kind of law would come out of that? Something fair and even handed I'm sure:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
HTA 172, WITHOUT the conviction (i.e. even if you come out of court all charges dropped)
will leave you with a 7 day suspension on your license (insurance will bury you). Also every time you get pulled over from then on, the cop will see that you've had a 7 day license suspension…hence prejudice right there.
will cost legal fees, upwards to $5000 (especially if you're hiring proper representation considering the how your life will be over if convicted)
approx $2000 for towing and impound.

Interesting thing about that towing and impound, all those charges funnel to one guy, at one company. He likes to show people his fleet of super sports cars, a Lambo, a Ferrari, etc.

People are making big money from this law, and not just the Ontario justice system.
 
Now maybe it is because I ride responsibility but I have not been threatened, nor intimidated, nor had a cop utter 172 to me. I have received tickets, (which I generally contest and more times then not I have a winning percentage), of the last 6 tickets spread over more than a decade. I have had one conviction, and that is the only ticket I didn't contest, (GF thought she was being "nice" and paid it before I sent it in asking for early resolution and eventually trial).

Were none of them reduced to 15 over on the spot? While your legal savvy and shucking all responsibility is enviable it may push certain law enforcement types into a mindset.
 

Back
Top Bottom