no one said it's not in the HTA? i doubt that.
|
|
|
Lane filtering might become legal....
- Thread starter GRN_ZX7R
- Start date
Was that g4getmoney? Poor guy had to sell his bike to fund his defence and never came back.
A cop saying they saw you.. doesn't hold the weight that most think it does.
I wouldn't tell the JP anything.. I'd let the crown lay out it's case and argue my defence.
In the case I referenced above.. rider was on video and there was an undercover cop present.
JP asks you; so what were you doing?
You: nothing, traveling on the road like a responsible citizen
Video plays
Guilty.
We're dancing around it and there's no need to do so. The police cannot charge you with a law that's not in the books, yes that's obvious. They can consider it a dangerous action however(and rightly so based on some tards i've seen zipping past me on the DVP). So they will throw the book at you and it can and does stick.
It's not illegal but doing so can result in a charge that has a good chance to stick. So is it worth it? Subjective.
So what else is there to discuss?
Trials
Well-known member
So are you going to defy the law and challenge it in court?
Start a new thread for it if you do, it will make an interesting read and good reference for further discussion.
slowbird
Well-known member
Woah that's pretty unbelievable. Even with video proof of the guy doing wheelies and stuff he was only found guilty of mischief and not guilty of dangerous driving or stunt driving.
Only twice?
Every traffic charge that has ever stuck in court without video evidence, which is most of them, says otherwise.
I said that in response to someone saying this...
"yes plead guilty, cop says he saw you do it. done."
... Implying that just because a cop says he saw you doing something automatically means you're guilty.
Guess what, happens ALL THE TIME.
that's what the prosecutor wants you to beleive.....I got off my radar speeding ticket as the judge beleived my account over the cop who clearly lied.
The prosecutor tried to persuade me to pay the "reduced" fine ...it's just a money mill as people don't fight the charges.
She said he said she said does not apply to cops...that's a crock and the judge found me more beleivable than the cop. The prosecutor was still arguing with the judge when I scampered away.
The judge clearly was not fond of how the prosc was trying to bully me ....oh you can't use written notes etc ....but of course the cop can ....
Fight your tickets
Most stick, that was my point. Not all. Most.
If the reality was different and most were getting thrown out (which isn't reality) you'd see cameras littered everywhere in police interactions - dash cams, body cams, cameras cameras cameras. Personally I think those SHOULD be mandatory anyways for a variety of reasons, but for traffic enforcement they have not been proven necessary as the crown almost always puts the balance of faith in the LEO's unless there's major gaps somewhere.
If that wasn't the case then all every defendant would have to do is show up in court and say "I didn't do any of that" and every case would end up in a stalemate or dismissed. Clearly, that's not reality.
If the reality was different and most were getting thrown out (which isn't reality) you'd see cameras littered everywhere in police interactions - dash cams, body cams, cameras cameras cameras. Personally I think those SHOULD be mandatory anyways for a variety of reasons, but for traffic enforcement they have not been proven necessary as the crown almost always puts the balance of faith in the LEO's unless there's major gaps somewhere.
If that wasn't the case then all every defendant would have to do is show up in court and say "I didn't do any of that" and every case would end up in a stalemate or dismissed. Clearly, that's not reality.
The term is Friends of the Court. Can't remember the Latin term, but who is one is up to the judge.
amicus curiae -- not sure it applies to the cops though, or maybe it does (are they a third party???). Regardless, no doubt they get "special" treatment regarding testimony vs Joe public.
jl
It's you vs. the Crown, so they would be a third party.
I've done it once when I first got my license.. went on the bike lane to the front at a red light.. Got pulled right after and although there isn't a proper 'lane filter charge', he gave me a different ticket. I honestly thought I was allowed to as cyclist does it too.. Regardless I won't do it again unless it's legal, even though I feel cyclist with no license can, why can't I? Just not worth the gamble of getting side swiped by some idiot or a ticket that I gotta go to court for.
JTR
Well-known member
Because motor vehicles are not allowed to use bicycle lanes?
I've never been behind a splitter yet, even in the van, that I couldn't stomp the gas when the light changed and run over.
They all seem to be young and naive, and grossly overestimate their ability on a motorcycle.
I've even had a couple of them stall on their takeoff, and if I wasn't being extra cautious, because of their actions . . .
I imagine at some point, someone will split and do it properly, but by that time there will probably be 2 or 3 of them together.
They all seem to be young and naive, and grossly overestimate their ability on a motorcycle.
I've even had a couple of them stall on their takeoff, and if I wasn't being extra cautious, because of their actions . . .
I imagine at some point, someone will split and do it properly, but by that time there will probably be 2 or 3 of them together.
|
|
|
|
|