Failing to stop | Page 4 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Failing to stop

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:

This "****** the world" mentality among bike riders is annoying as hell, and they should not be surprised if the world returns the favour.

California already has laws in the books that forbid anything but stock exhausts after 2013. The law is not being enforced, yet.

The truth is, even when I see those ****tards with flip-flops, t-shirt, shorts and back protectors on SS bikes doing stupid ****, I want to throw the book at them.

99% of those a-holes won't be riding bikes in 3 years. Take them to a track and they would **** their pants.

At the other end of the scale, fat grey beards with straight pipes riding between donut shops all weekend and making the monday news when they fall of their sofas on an exit /entry ramp.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

This angle was taken in a court challenge to the Ontario Supreme court. It lost because the judge ruled that anyone charged under 172 was an immediate danger to the public, and should be treated like a DUI.

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.

I see black donuts every monday on 403 cloverleafs.

6. Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver's seat.

This is about "ghost riding the whip" in cars. It's the single dumbest thing America invented, and that says a lot.
 
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.

Actually the ONLY one that a conviction was registered for was for speeding, that one was reduced to 10 over but I still would have argued it in court, as that is my right and your right, I do have "legal savvy" but not "shucking responsibility" at all just exercising my legal rights, (to contest the ticket). I have posted about one of them on the forum, (seatbelt), when in fact I was wearing the seatbelt.

My point is to Elwood, many of the posts in this thread would leave him, (he is in BC), that in Ontario virtually every time a bike is stopped a 172 results. Which is simply NOT the case at all. It is a minor fraction of all traffic stops. Therefore not sure why "some" riders default is setting is I am getting a 172 and therefore run. We have seen too many threads about people who lost their lives while running. WHAT or WHO caused the collision is not matertial in the end the ONLY thing that matters is that another young rider losses their life
 
Last edited:
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.

MOST laws are poorly written and ill conceived as a result of some "perceived" danger. A GREAT example of this is the fact that now ANY driver under 22 MUST have a 0% Alcohol reading at all times, (which in and of itself is not a bad concept). This new regulation was a direct result of some rich kid drinking with his friends at a golf course in the Muskokas then rolling the car into a lake and killing some occupants. Now all drivers/riders are 22 are subject to a law because of ONE incident.
 
MOST laws are poorly written and ill conceived as a result of some "perceived" danger. A GREAT example of this is the fact that now ANY driver under 22 MUST have a 0% Alcohol reading at all times, (which in and of itself is not a bad concept). This new regulation was a direct result of some rich kid drinking with his friends at a golf course in the Muskokas then rolling the car into a lake and killing some occupants. Now all drivers/riders are 22 are subject to a law because of ONE incident.
So in your estimate, how many deaths are required for a law to be justifiable? 10? 100? 1000? Just one if it's someone you love?
 
^ It's a fallacy to assume that passing a law against something will actually prevent that thing from happening, prevent the consequences of that thing happening, or not have unintended consequences that negate its desired outcome.
 
I was going to post some comments but kwtoxman beat me to it.
I agree with his major points, so there is no point in repeating here.

Riding in Ontario can be defined as "pre 172" and "post 172". Definitely !!

This law hurts due process and our constitutional rights, it is a disgrace that it passed scrutiny in the first place.

The most valuable thing a police officer can have is the public's trust - I was born in a country where, at some point in history, the people lost all faith and trust on the police, and when that happened, each cop automatically became one more criminal.

I think if I were a cop I would err in the side of caution and never charge anyone under the stunting law... due process is something precious that we take for granted in Canada, but it should not be put at risk ever.

:cool:


172 changed the landscape for riders in a bad bad way. A lot of people won't stop because they don't want to chance a 172 charge. That is the root of it to most who run imo. And they'll run for relatively minor stuff because 172 can and has been used on pretty minor stuff.

Riders know what can constitute a 172 is so broad and discretionary that for many of them, even though they may not have been doing much of anything wrong, it makes a lot of sense to run because there is a reasonable chance the officer is thinking 172. I remember weaving and standing on the pegs even being considered possible for a 172 charge. I get a bad hip cramp on one side from time to time riding and I immediately stand up to relieve the pain and stretch it out. What happens if an officer sees this and lights up? Am I getting a 172 charge for standing on my pegs on a sport bike because of a hip cramp? What should I do? Plus, there is the Bunda case. Squeezing for a right turn was found to be 172 worthy. http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforu...ate-of-the-law-in-Ontario-a-look-at-R-v-Bunda. Worthy of impoundment, $2k fine minimum, and even more so heart-attack (facility) insurance rates for every vehicle and motorcycle he has for more than a few years.

Another related consideration is that the punishment for running and getting caught is frankly similar to a 172 charge. And a plate means nothing if the rider isn't a doofus. Even the youtube 299 km/hr guy in BC traffic got off.

Another consideration ae previous bad experiences with a police officer or officers. I know some good cops, and I've dealt with a few bad cops. Want to roll the dice on what kind of officer has just lit you up? With the 172 legislation out there? Out riding one day years ago before 172 I got a FI problem that resulted in erratic throttle response. Turned around and on my way home (who wants to drive a wonky bike with a flashing red warning light on the dash), pointed out the flashing red warning light and explained the issue to the officer. He said he'd give me a ticket but if I show up to court with service proof of the problem and getting it fixed he would kill the ticket. Got it fixed (new bike under warranty), it was a TPS issue, went to court and showed the officer the service receipt which had a detailed description and explanation. He completely forgot about the earlier conversation and refused to honor his offer. Unfortunately, in many people's experience, many police officer's cannot be trusted.

Then there is the shady side of using 172 that so many riders read about or observe. There have been some real stretches for charges. Then the fraudulent 172 charges. Then the speed traps like at the end of 410 where the speed limit decreases that is nothing more than a revenue tool with zero safety in mind and they've 172'd vehicles there as well.



Many people like to wheelie. I really enjoy wheelie-ing. That is explicit 172 charge territory. What happens if a rider wheelie-ing sees a cop car or SUV? Very often I'd guess.... hammer down. For a wheelie.


My thought processes about what I'd do with a police interaction on my sportbike before 172 is now very different with 172 out there. Most riders are just people. They'll take their lumps with typical HTA legislation (speeding charges, undue care and attention, etc). But with draconian 172 legislation out there, for many all bets are off.
 
^ It's a fallacy to assume that passing a law against something will actually prevent that thing from happening, prevent the consequences of that thing happening, or not have unintended consequences that negate its desired outcome.

You cannot tell that to Conservatives. According to them, there are no drugs or prostitution because we have laws against that.
 
I was going to post some comments but kwtoxman beat me to it.
I agree with his major points, so there is no point in repeating here.

Riding in Ontario can be defined as "pre 172" and "post 172". Definitely !!

This law hurts due process and our constitutional rights, it is a disgrace that it passed scrutiny in the first place.

The most valuable thing a police officer can have is the public's trust - I was born in a country where, at some point in history, the people lost all faith and trust on the police, and when that happened, each cop automatically became one more criminal.

I think if I were a cop I would err in the side of caution and never charge anyone under the stunting law... due process is something precious that we take for granted in Canada, but it should not be put at risk ever.

:cool:

I agree and if one were to look at stats it would undoubtedly show that MOST officers never lay a 172. There are some, I am sure that abuse it and over use it, (which was not the original intent of the legislators). This is something that "should be monitored" by individual supervisors. When I had a squad of constables working for me, if one wrote every single 172 and none of the others did then I would need to look at the circumstances surrounding that.

Is it abused? Certainly but it is being abused by a select few not the majority of officers.

Candianbiker: Certainly ONE accident shouldn't be the standard for writing a new law to deal with the circumstances of that ONE accident. It is tragic that people lost their life, but it doesn't justify the need for a new law when existing laws could have dealt just as effectively with the situation. The driver was intoxicated we already have laws to deal with that. Why do wee need to "assume" anyone under 22 who has say a glass of wine with dinner is now such a danger to the rest of society. If they were a danger after this accident, then surely the same level of danger existed before the accident. It was widely reported that this new law came into effect only because his dad was wealthy and well connected with the Ontario Liberal Party.

If it had been my kid or your kid this law wouldn't exist today, but for the connections daddy had. Dad had a "need" to blame someone, (other than his son who choose to drive intoxicated), so he had a new law created. To "fix" a problem that was no more or less of a probl;em today then it was before his son's crash.
 
^ It's a fallacy to assume that passing a law against something will actually prevent that thing from happening, prevent the consequences of that thing happening, or not have unintended consequences that negate its desired outcome.
I disagree but acknowledge there are no absolutes, nor is the effectiveness of any law provable, since you can't state with certainty if people are not doing something (or doing it) solely because of a law.
However, as an example, most of us pay taxes because the penalties for not doing so are steep. If taxes were completely optional, I'd be willing to bet a lot of us would say no thanks. On the other hand, despite the most severe penalties, murders still occur. Would there be more if there was no law against it or do most people refrain because it's simply abhorrent to them?
 
I personally agree with most of 172. Maybe not the immediate suspension and impound in some cases as we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

That being said. Ive noticed alot of innocent until proven guilty talk here. I just find it humorous that we all want that right UNLESS its a cop. Take for example the young cop who shot the kid on the street car. Most people complain hes on the job again, so he doesn't get to be innocent until proven guilty?

The basis behind 172 are justified imo. But giving the police the right to be judge, jury and executioner isn't. I don't think laws should be left fully open to officers discretion.

now if your driving in a way you think you can be charged under 172 then your probably driving like an asshat anyways.
 
Last edited:
That being said. Ive noticed alot of innocent until proven guilty talk here. I just find it humorous that we all want that right UNLESS its a cop. Take for example the young cop who shot the kid on the street car. Most people complain hes on the job again, so he doesn't get to be innocent until proven guilty?

I hear where you are coming from but this is the world of "work". In MY job, if I screw up big-time, I am out on my ear NOW and no longer earning a paycheck, and that isn't waiting for a court case. If the dismissal was wrongful then I sue for lost wages afterwards.
 
Candianbiker: Certainly ONE accident shouldn't be the standard for writing a new law to deal with the circumstances of that ONE accident. It is tragic that people lost their life, but it doesn't justify the need for a new law when existing laws could have dealt just as effectively with the situation. The driver was intoxicated we already have laws to deal with that. Why do wee need to "assume" anyone under 22 who has say a glass of wine with dinner is now such a danger to the rest of society. If they were a danger after this accident, then surely the same level of danger existed before the accident. It was widely reported that this new law came into effect only because his dad was wealthy and well connected with the Ontario Liberal Party.

If it had been my kid or your kid this law wouldn't exist today, but for the connections daddy had. Dad had a "need" to blame someone, (other than his son who choose to drive intoxicated), so he had a new law created. To "fix" a problem that was no more or less of a probl;em today then it was before his son's crash.
Sometimes laws are created because of the lobbying of a single individual or group or because a particularly horrifying incident occurred. Witness the number of laws named after children, e.g., Adam's Law. There were already laws in place against predators but because of one parent, enhancements were enacted. The Amber Alert is another example.
Personally, I have no problem with a mandatory 0% BAC for anyone under 22 and would like to see it extended to EVERYONE. Ask anyone who's lost a loved one to a drunk who couldn't manage to get through a few hours without drinking and driving.
 
Be smart, the OP is fishing. He wants to see who claims they run and then link that to your bike description...

Not an issue.

Here's some truth...

The first ticket I ever got on a bike was a careless charge that I didnt deserve.. and the cop knew it (beat it in court). I had left a place, and other riders that left after, passed me with the cop in tow. When they passed me, he pulled me over... even said he knew I wasn't actually with them but must know who they are, etc...
The first time I ran, I was with others and we got lit up... when they ran, I ran too. I didn't think about it, I just did it. It was easy to get away, so just started doing it. Most of the times I ran, it was for little to no reason... and was before H.172.
I've run a lot, more than a 50 times. I have never been charged for it. Some of the times, the cop knew who I was even before I ran. I have had the police show up at my house right after running... and not been charged. I have discussed the chases afterwards, open and frank, with the cop(s) that was chasing... and not been charged.
I have had cops try to knock me off my bike while riding... they had postioned themselves ahead of me and made real efforts to hit me as I went by. I have witnessed a cop take aim at another rider as he passed him while running... I am pretty certain that the only reason he didn't take the shot(s) was because of the background and he was visibly upset that he couldn't/didn't.... another cop further down the road hit the rider in the neck/shoulder with a baton as he passed him... almost straight in the throat.
I had a cop hit the ditch while chasing me.... I am pretty sure he was trying to avoid taking me out when he ditched it... I actually stopped, at a distance, to make sure he got out of the car... and then rode off when he did (and gave me the finger).... had a 'off the record' conversation with that cop couple of weeks later. That conversation really made me think about things ... and I haven't run since.
I have run with other board members many times... and one of the cops that has chased me, is mentioned above, is also a board member... many of you know him, or know who he is.
 
I hear where you are coming from but this is the world of "work". In MY job, if I screw up big-time, I am out on my ear NOW and no longer earning a paycheck, and that isn't waiting for a court case. If the dismissal was wrongful then I sue for lost wages afterwards.
You mustn't be in a union. That is the way unions work. (I'm not either)

Don't get me wrong. I don't think he should be back on the beat. But I also dont want him being paid to sit on his butt (which is what happens) Drop him behind a desk or something if he has to be paid while its investigated and processed.
 
Technically the Police need to be behind you with at least their lights on before you are obligated to pull over, if they can't catch up to do that...then are you really trying to evade? :D
 
Technically the Police need to be behind you with at least their lights on before you are obligated to pull over, if they can't catch up to do that...then are you really trying to evade? :D

police will and do Lie in court. they will say they were behind you for a few kilometres with lights on, spotlight on etc…
 
police will and do Lie in court. they will say they were behind you for a few kilometres with lights on, spotlight on etc…

This. Any cop who says I'm charging you with hta172 because I followed you for the last 10km is completely full of ****


See shaman. Some cops actually are bad and I agree.
 

Back
Top Bottom