My (and your) life is only worth $85 + $9

[motoride777]

OP why didn't you hire a personal injury lawyer and go after her car insurance policy? you still have time. statue of limitation is two years from the date of accident (i think, not sure).

since the driver in traffic court already pled guilty. you have a very good chance of winning in civil court. you can potentially get $10,000 or more from court settlement.

you want more justice? sue her, seriously!

you think you're healthy? well, a separated shoulder means torn or stretched ligaments in your shoulder. sometimes takes years to heal. might leave scar tissues in there permanently. you should get another MRI done, and etc.

 

[WoBblyCaT]

Just playing devil's advocate here, so keep the flame throwers holstered....is it not the single most common suggestion on this forum to plead and/or defeat any HTA charges at all cost? Every angle, method, **** luck, lawyer, paralegal, anything suggested so that a rider can plead down? Especially for the major offence of speeding or being a retard at 50 over, I guess one should assume that all posters here would pony up and just plead guilty if they are ever charged, right? :lmao:

Most importantly, I'm glad the OP is riding and well again. For what I took from this post, is that as a rider, don't count on legal deterrents to save your *** from poor drivers. Stay safe!!

In the original post I said I expected this outcome. To be honest if I was in the driver's shoes, I would've hired a paralegal also.

Oh, I get it, I'm just having a chuckle at some of the replies. The seriousness of the accident is not lost on me; I just find it an interesting component of the human condition that a "mistake" (albeit stupid and selfish) is not beyond what anyone here could make any given day themselves (think SMIDSY). Yet, they are calling for blood and jail time, something they do not call for when ****** moves end up with a group ride ending with a fatality, people doing mach 20 down the 401, etc.
In the interest of fairness, I wonder about the strength of conviction amongst posters here if that mentality was equally applied. Keep in mind, spend a day in traffic court and watch the reduced charges by the hundreds. Nothing new here folks.

But, like I said, good on the OP for coming out alive, and remember to ride defensively! No more stats required please.

I don't recall anyone asking for blood or jailtime. Something more than $94 would've been more appropriate IMHO. I'm no legal eagle, but something more major with more points.

 

[happycrappy]

While I'm sorry to hear it because she probably didn't learn a fan thing... I'm also not shocked at all. Like Paul said, speed and you're the devil who's not getting out of it. Drive a cage and plea down and you walk. This kind of thing needs to stop. They need to make examples out of people like this not pat them on the head and send them back out on the roads.

Whether they intended it or not...it was reckless and endangered someone....dangerous even. They should pay the piper as it were. I firmly believe there is no justice in the system.

I agree with this post 1000%. I didn't intend to do 50 over yet they'd still stick It to me. Same thing here except the mad rush for timmies could have killed someone

Wobbly, glad you're OK and still doing what you love.

Having said that, if this person continues the way she is, she'll eventually hit something bigger and angrier that'll "settle the score" if you will.

It's absolute BS that something like this is less than 2 cases of beer in fines.

In the original post I said I expected this outcome. To be honest if I was in the driver's shoes, I would've hired a paralegal also.


I don't recall anyone asking for blood or jailtime. Something more than $94 would've been more appropriate IMHO. I'm no legal eagle, but something more major with more points.

Sorry for my choice of words, but I think you get the point of what I posted. I fully agree that the plea down system sucks, and I stated pretty clearly that it is a normal function of the traffic court system to do so. What I find funny, is that the membership here emphatically supports and teaches its members to navigate it to their advantage, so in cases like yours, it will also be used.

Regarding the appropriateness of the charge; keep in mind that she also now has an at-fault personal injury on her insurance record. It doesn't benefit the victim directly, but it is far more punitive than most HTA penalties anyway, and honestly I'm surprised nobody mentioned that. Seems to me the norm of 5-7 years of premium rape is heading her way.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

The plea bargaining system is a necessary part of our legal system. Unfortunately it is frequently misused by The Crown, by pleading down to ridiculous levels as mere expedient. In Wobbly's case there were very real consequences, for him, of the negligence of someone else. There should, therefore, be very real consequences to that person. The penalty imposed was a slap in the face to the victim. Sure, the penalty needs to fit the crime rather than the consequences, but this met neither criteria.

Then there are situations like mine in which the person who hit me had already had his license suspended and had no liability insurance, at the time of the collision. He was a multiple offender, who was working as a delivery driver. He was hit with a $3.5K fine for the lack on insurance, which was $1.5K under the stated legislative minimum for that crime. For the act itself that resulted in the collision he received a 'turn not in safety' and a fine of something like $170.00, while I was carted off to hospital in a neck brace and strapped to a backboard.

As many have said before me we have a legal system, not a justice system.

 

[WoBblyCaT]

I think part of the problem is that police officers charge people with a blanket charge like "Careless Driving" hoping it will stick. This is a major conviction and virtually forces the person to hire a paralegal. This in turn leads to the paralegal choosing the lowest consequence charge for their client, not the judge and not the officer. If the officer charged them with something more reasonable, the judge may be less likely to accept a plea.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I think part of the problem is that police officers charge people with a blanket charge like "Careless Driving" hoping it will stick. This is a major conviction and virtually forces the person to hire a paralegal. This in turn leads to the paralegal choosing the lowest consequence charge for their client, not the judge and not the officer. If the officer charged them with something more reasonable, the judge may be less likely to accept a plea.

The problem is that 'operation without due care and attention' was the appropriate charge. The default negotiated charge should have been something like 'failure to yield right of way' (3 points), which would have greater consequences. What the person actually received, in your case, was essentially a walk. To my mind that's completely on The Crown.

 

[peterm15]

The problem is that 'operation without due care and attention' was the appropriate charge. The default negotiated charge should have been something like 'failure to yield right of way' (3 points), which would have greater consequences. What the person actually received, in your case, was essentially a walk. To my mind that's completely on The Crown.

COULDN'T she have been charged under hta 172 then.

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.

^^^from another thread. Its the definition of what falls under 172.

 

[dasiffy]

^both careless driving and 172 have the same "driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention" criteria.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

^both careless driving and 172 have the same "driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention" criteria.

The right move for the Crown would have been 172 and plead down to 130 (careless).

 

[happycrappy]

Ideally, there would be more emphasis on accurate and relevant charges with regards to HTA offenses.....with no "lesser included plea option" (in my opinion at least). That's the one big thing I don't like about 172; it's not the severity that bothers me, it's the ambiguity and the broad scope of inclusion with it. I'd rather see or guilty or not guilty only when a charge is brought forward, but this is what we have. That's one of the many reasons that something like 172 became law in the first place; the general public wanted laws with teeth for bigger offences, and something that even if you could play ball in the system, you'd pay for the pleasure regardless. Of course they screwed it up, but it's here in large part because of our impotent current system.
My own mother got a careless driving charge for rear-ending a car, and I managed to get it dropped OVER THE PHONE WITH A PROSECUTOR, no lawyer, paralegal or anything. Wrong initial charge or poor system? Hard to tell, but if they assessed accidents properly in the first place, we would not need pleas available. An at-fault accident should be a charge by itself, black or white, and any aggravating circumstances could be addressed with the current list of additional charges. That may provide a much clearer picture of someones driving history than what we have now.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

From the description of the incident HTA 172 doesn't apply. Operation without due care and attention, aka 'careless', does. Unfortunately the bar is set pretty high for a finding of careless operation and I would go as far as to say that a good lawyer will get it kicked far more often than not.

HTA 172 and careless are more parallel charges, than one being heavier than the other. Oh course the hammer from 172 falls on you whether or not you're ultimately convicted, which is my primary objection to that particular section of the HTA.

 

[dasiffy]

race is defined as "3. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or ..."
stunt is defined as "8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or ...."

so 172 is "Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway" while "Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway"

nice.


EDIT:
i know there's a difference between how the law is applied and how it's written, but all it takes is one cop/crown to interpret it to how they like.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

race is defined as "3. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or ..."
stunt is defined as "8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or ...."

so 172 is "Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway" while "Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway"

nice.


EDIT:
i know there's a difference between how the law is applied and how it's written, but all it takes is one cop/crown to interpret it to how they like.

Those are separate sections that apply to two different sets of definitions; "racing" and "stunt driving."

 

[RockerGuy]

Somebody just tried to kill me. It never ends

 

[dasiffy]

Those are separate sections that apply to two different sets of definitions; "racing" and "stunt driving."

Racing, stunts, etc., prohibited

172. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

in the reg 455/07
race is defined as "3. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or ..."
stunt is defined as "8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or ...."

i just replaced the words "race" and "stunt" with their definitions
i'm not sure what you're getting on about.

 

[unL33T]

You didn't die. When I was in college one classmate was going the speed limit down a road on a bright sunny day when a 70 yr old woman pulled out in front of him at the last second. Died in the hospital at the age of 24.

She got a $90 improper left turn fine.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Somebody just tried to kill me. It never ends

Had some doorknob in a slammed, tinted, and fart-piped Mazda 6 try to put me into the back of a parked transport along Tomken Rd., on Monday afternoon, by pacing me in the left lane off the light. It was brake to avoid and probably get nailed by the cars behind, or teach the turd about the acceleration of even a mid-sized bike. Guess which I chose.

in the reg 455/07
race is defined as "3. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or ..."
stunt is defined as "8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or ...."

i just replaced the words "race" and "stunt" with their definitions
i'm not sure what you're getting on about.

The definitions involve much more than just the 'without due care and attention' part.

 

[WoBblyCaT]

You didn't die. When I was in college one classmate was going the speed limit down a road on a bright sunny day when a 70 yr old woman pulled out in front of him at the last second. Died in the hospital at the age of 24.

She got a $90 improper left turn fine.

That's tragic. I hope the family went after her, legally speaking.

It reminds me of Liz Metcalfe -- her death was in 2011 but the case is still ongoing. The Crown is still pursuing the driver. Her thread in the Fallen Riders thread is in the archive http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/archiv...beloved-Liz-Metcalfe-Lost-but-never-forgotten Wow, reading the first couple pages still chokes me up.

 

[unL33T]

That's tragic. I hope the family went after her, legally speaking.

It reminds me of Liz Metcalfe -- her death was in 2011 but the case is still ongoing. The Crown is still pursuing the driver. Her thread in the Fallen Riders thread is in the archive http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/archiv...beloved-Liz-Metcalfe-Lost-but-never-forgotten Wow, reading the first couple pages still chokes me up.

I'm not sure but I don't think they did.

Yeah legal can take forever. My aunt was killed by a drunk driver and my extended family sued. It took over 10 years before it was settled.

 

[fastar1]

From the description of the incident HTA 172 doesn't apply. Operation without due care and attention, aka 'careless', does. Unfortunately the bar is set pretty high for a finding of careless operation and I would go as far as to say that a good lawyer will get it kicked far more often than not.

HTA 172 and careless are more parallel charges, than one being heavier than the other. Oh course the hammer from 172 falls on you whether or not you're ultimately convicted, which is my primary objection to that particular section of the HTA.

Easy; the fact that she gunned the throttle indicates that she saw the car coming and wanted to cross ahead of it. The fact that she saw the car but not the bike in front of it, could only be described as inattentive, or "operation without due care and attention". No?