Stunt Driving.... Need Help!!!

[hedo2002]

I find this all hard to believe. The police have no concrete evidence. If the OP was never pulled over by a cop during one such driving offence, then is it hear say evidence. No proof of who was actually riding the motorcycle at time it was seen breaking the law.

This will never stick, unless OP is a complete dumby.

Actually if he was tagged by the OPP chopper then they will have video of the incident that would hardly be "hearsay" not to mention the testimony of the observer, (who is a sworn OPP officer), again hardly hearsay.

As for the OP he reported in his inital posting that he admitted to operating the bike ans essentially speeding to avoid being late for class. BUT I have already provided him appropriate advice on how to deal with the statement.

 

[MacDoc]

Sounds stupid, but I generally felt "safer" from being hit by someone else when I was consistently passing them. I.e. doesn't matter what's in my rear view.

Not stupid ...statistics bear you out, drivers doing slightly above traffic speeds have fewer accidents.
The likely explanation is two things.

They are driving alertly .

The surrounding vehicles are in motion relative to the rider and our eyes are evolved to detect motion and to "ignore" stationary objects around us.

I hate it when another driver or rider "paces" me and stays glued....I will indubitally put serious distance between me and such bozos.

 

[xfactor]

First, How would one be a "sport touring wannabe" anyway? I often tour the countryside on a sport touring motorcycle; how does that make me a "wannabe"?

Second, do you think it's possible for a sufficiently skilled rider to track-day a sport tourer and slide a knee puck? A 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

1. Dude, when I look at your avatar, I don't think of sport touring in the Kawarthas. If that's what you're into then then that's not what's coming across.
2. NO. How would you get "sufficiently skilled" by riding within the Laws of MTO highway code?

You have to take a certain risks in order to improve your skill. The whole point of a paradigm and construct of the laws is to negate the risk taking side by providing a operational framework.

I don't mean to call you a wannabe, but I do take offence that you are painting an entire segment with a broad brush. The undertone of your sentences are full of schadenfreude mix with sanctimony.

 

[Joe Bass]

Going to the ice cream joint or Tim's to pose is not a sport but riding twisty roads and trying to improve your technique by becoming smoother and more fluid with your lines / throttle sure sounds like a sport to me. I am not talking about going 200 km/h or knee dragging on the road, that's for the track. Just riding your bike at a comfortable speed and focusing more on lines and smoothness rather than watching your speedo to make sure that you don't break the law at all.

Don't hate on ice cream.

Sent from a Samsung Galaxy far, far away using Tapatalk

 

[inreb]

As for the OP he reported in his inital posting that he admitted to operating the bike ans essentially speeding to avoid being late for class. BUT I have already provided him appropriate advice on how to deal with the statement.

"Deal" with a statement? I'm not going to go back looking thru your pearls of wisdom but I trust you're not counselling any sort of chicanery. Pls. don't disappoint as I hold all former cops in the highest of esteem.

 

[Concac]

"Deal" with a statement? I'm not going to go back looking thru your pearls of wisdom but I trust you're not counselling any sort of chicanery. Pls. don't disappoint as I hold all former cops in the highest of esteem.

Remember the first time you found out Santa does not exist?

Well you're about to meet that old friend of emotion.

 

[Benny!]

Actually if he was tagged by the OPP chopper then they will have video of the incident that would hardly be "hearsay" not to mention the testimony of the observer, (who is a sworn OPP officer), again hardly hearsay.

As for the OP he reported in his inital posting that he admitted to operating the bike ans essentially speeding to avoid being late for class. BUT I have already provided him appropriate advice on how to deal with the statement.

exactly. Also they wouldn't have gone through the bother of following, impounding the bike, and charging if they didn't have enough evidence to support it.

 

[beverage]

... Also they wouldn't have gone through the bother of following, impounding the bike, and charging if they didn't have enough evidence to support it.

Try running that by the people who have subsequently been found innocent in a court of law, but were still out of pocket for towing fees, impound fees, lawyer fees, etc.

 

[hedo2002]

"Deal" with a statement? I'm not going to go back looking thru your pearls of wisdom but I trust you're not counselling any sort of chicanery. Pls. don't disappoint as I hold all former cops in the highest of esteem.

Not at all. I provided him with legal arguments that a lawyer or paralegal would also point out to him about a statement given without a caution being administered as opposed to an "uttered statement" all legal provisions under the Canada Evidence Act. How his legal representative may have his verbal statements excluded, (which would go a long way to having the charges dismissed for lack of evidence). He is considering his options for representation, yet to be determined.

I know it is difficult to believe but sometimes people on this forum actually appreciate sage advice, which is based in fact, rather than forum folly dispensed by those without a lick of common sense.

IE can one ride a bike at 190 km/h "safely", as this is not germaine to the OP's issue which is how to deal with the charges he faces. I highly doubt "but your honor I was riding safely at 190" would be a viable defence strategy

 

[hedo2002]

exactly. Also they wouldn't have gone through the bother of following, impounding the bike, and charging if they didn't have enough evidence to support it.

Not so, an officer may believe he has sufficent evidence, to support the charge, but the crown may decide that not enough evidence exists to proceed to trial. But none of that will matter to the OP as he has already incurred the cost of towing, impound, and reinstatement fees for his drivers licence.

Although the OP has basically already confessed it was indeed him who committed the acts and acknowledged the speeds involved. The most important issue at this point is to get the charges reduced or dismissed to avoid the "REAL" hit... insurance.

 

[Dr. Luxurious]

...not to mention the testimony of the observer, (who is a sworn OPP officer), again hardly hearsay....

...yes a cop would NEVER lie right ??.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!

 

[ZX600]

...yes a cop would NEVER lie right ??.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!

I don't think he said that at all

 

[Blackfin]

I don't mean to call you a wannabe, but I do take offence that you are painting an entire segment with a broad brush. The undertone of your sentences are full of schadenfreude mix with sanctimony.

The way a large number of (SS?) riders here have "debated" the concepts of responsible, safe riding and riding within the law it would seem that even as they're laughing and snickering at the arguments calling for more mature riding and increased personal responsibility they can't see the coming insurance rate upheaval, ironically courtesy of the very riding practices they're basically defending.

So schadenfreude? No, not exactly. It's more like watching YT videos of bullies getting karma payback. If you want to call "schadenfreude" that's cool.

Reminds me of a Far Side cartoon:

 

[inreb]

IE can one ride a bike at 190 km/h "safely", as this is not germaine to the OP's issue which is how to deal with the charges he faces. I highly doubt "but your honor I was riding safely at 190" would be a viable defence strategy

This is correct and in line with the sageness I have come to expect from you. When I was 18 I very carefully rolled thru 2 stop signs in a quiet residential neighbourhood because the clutch cable was torn asunder. Imagine my dismay when I got charged with careless driving and more. I couldn't have been more careful and was sure the judge would understand. Unfortunately for me the judge was not very wise. Perfect storm of stupid cop and stupid judge.

 

[Benny!]

Not so, an officer may believe he has sufficent evidence, to support the charge, but the crown may decide that not enough evidence exists to proceed to trial. But none of that will matter to the OP as he has already incurred the cost of towing, impound, and reinstatement fees for his drivers licence.

Although the OP has basically already confessed it was indeed him who committed the acts and acknowledged the speeds involved. The most important issue at this point is to get the charges reduced or dismissed to avoid the "REAL" hit... insurance.

yes but the officer believes he has enough. Whether or not the crown feels that way is a different story.

 

[hedo2002]

yes but the officer believes he has enough. Whether or not the crown feels that way is a different story.

True, But it is highly unlikely the officer the OP dealt with at the scene was the officer who observed the offence. The OPP Observer, is assigned to the air support unit, not the Highway Safety Division, (who would have been tasked with the followup, IE Bike siezure etc)

 

[hedo2002]

This is correct and in line with the sageness I have come to expect from you. When I was 18 I very carefully rolled thru 2 stop signs in a quiet residential neighbourhood because the clutch cable was torn asunder. Imagine my dismay when I got charged with careless driving and more. I couldn't have been more careful and was sure the judge would understand. Unfortunately for me the judge was not very wise. Perfect storm of stupid cop and stupid judge.

Well, obviously, I can't comment on the level of "safety" that was involved with "very carefully rolling through two stop signs", but that would seem a far cry from exceeding the posted limit by 90 km/h.

 

[PrivatePilot]

Try running that by the people who have subsequently been found innocent in a court of law, but were still out of pocket for towing fees, impound fees, lawyer fees, etc.

Found innocent, or had the charge withdrawn or dismissed on a technicality? Big difference.

When someone is charged with stunting it's reasonably safe to assume you were actually doing it and they have evidence to prove it. They're not pulling over gramps in the Caddy doing 101 in the right lane and trying to peg him as having been doing 160, they're pulling over people who have been paced or pegged by laser/radar and they have evidence against to be able to prove it.

If, down the road the charge is thrown out or withdrawn because some lawyer managed to find an out that worked, that doesn't make you "innocent", that makes you "Lucky".

 

[hedo2002]

Found innocent, or had the charge withdrawn or dismissed on a technicality? Big difference.

When someone is charged with stunting it's reasonably safe to assume you were actually doing it and they have evidence to prove it. They're not pulling over gramps in the Caddy doing 101 in the right lane and trying to peg him as having been doing 160, they're pulling over people who have been paced or pegged by laser/radar and they have evidence against to be able to prove it.

If, down the road the charge is thrown out or withdrawn because some lawyer managed to find an out that worked, that doesn't make you "innocent", that makes you "Lucky".

Respectfully, disagree that is reasonably safe to assume guilt, based merely on a charge being laid. There have been abuses with this particular section of the HTA and it's heavy handed "enforcement opportunities". Although ruled constitutuional by the courts the vehicle impound and licence suspension are defacto "penalties" that even if found not guilty, or charges are withdrawn, the accused has no recovery options for.

Not all not guilty rulings are because of "luck" the system has checks and balances in place, (to prevent abuses). There are rules and procedures officers adn the crown must follow to get a conviction. If these are not followed and a lwyer is sucessful in pointing them out then that isn't "luck" on the part of the defendent, but rather a failing by the system.

 

[Joe Bass]

Remember the first time you found out Santa does not exist?

Well you're about to meet that old friend of emotion.

Wtf are you talking about? "Santa doesn't exist"? Bull $#!+

Sent from a Samsung Galaxy far, far away using Tapatalk