Stunt Driving on private property? | Page 4 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Stunt Driving on private property?

Rob MacLennan said:
It's getting more and more difficult to know exactly what's going on with the stunting laws. Now, in addition to HTA section 172, you need to read and understand the following:

Law Document English View

Welcome to the new e-Laws. It’s now easier than ever to find Ontario laws. We welcome your feedback.
www.ontario.ca www.ontario.ca

Law Document English View

Welcome to the new e-Laws. It’s now easier than ever to find Ontario laws. We welcome your feedback.
www.ontario.ca www.ontario.ca
Click to expand...
So a Field or dirt bike trail still has the stunt laws apply from what I can tell?

Sent using a thumb maybe 2
 
Scuba Steve said:
So a Field or dirt bike trail still has the stunt laws apply from what I can tell?

Sent using a thumb maybe 2
Click to expand...
You would have to show me what gives you that impression. It is, however, rather problematic that they use the term "parking lot" as part of the definition of the term "parking lot." For example saying the definition of the word "blue" is "something that is blue" leaves a fair bit to interpretation.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
You would have to show me what gives you that impression. It is, however, rather problematic that they use the term "parking lot" as part of the definition of the term "parking lot." For example saying the definition of the word "blue" is "something that is blue" leaves a fair bit to interpretation.
Click to expand...
This part.

“specified place” means any parking lot, beach, park, bike path or trail, farm field or sports field.
 
raginduck said:
I doubt it'll stand when challenged in a court.
Click to expand...
How would it fall? Courts dont decide if the laws are stupid. They decide if there was sufficient evidence that you broke the law as written. There isnt much ambiguity in the way the law was written to allow a court to interpret in a reasonable way.
 
GreyGhost said:
How would it fall? Courts dont decide if the laws are stupid. They decide if there was sufficient evidence that you broke the law as written. There isnt much ambiguity in the way the law was written to allow a court to interpret in a reasonable way.
Click to expand...
Courts can also decide that a law oversteps, if challenged on Charter grounds.
 
GreyGhost said:
Has a 172 charge made it that far yet? It needs a very specific person to invest that much time and money in attempting to strike down stupidity.
Click to expand...
I believe that the law firm that represented the grandmother who was charged under 172 for doing in excess of 50 Kmh over the limit on Hwy7, somewhere around Madoc, challenged it under the Charter.
 
Scuba Steve said:
Did they win?

Sent using a thumb maybe 2
Click to expand...
I can't remember the specifics, because it was so long ago, but they did win. The woman had pulled out to pass a transport truck and the transport accelerated, in order to block her from passing. There was oncoming traffic so she had to speed up significantly to get around the truck, which was when OPP clocked her.

*EDIT* Found it. On appeal it ended up changing how the stunt driving charge is applied. It was originally an "absolute liability offence" which means if you did it, you're guilty. Circumstances are irrelevant. It's now applied as a "strict liability offence" which means that if you did it, you're guilty, but you can use the defence that you used "all reasonable care" in the situation and had no recourse, as a defence.

www.thestar.com

'Stunt-driving' grandma gets reprieve from judge

Jane Raham admits she panicked when she pushed on the accelerator to overtake the tractor-trailer.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
 
Last edited:
GreyGhost said:
Has a 172 charge made it that far yet? It needs a very specific person to invest that much time and money in attempting to strike down stupidity.
Click to expand...

If someone on here wanted to give it a go... I'd put in some money for a properly prepared challenge... depending on the circumstances.
The private property sections needs to be challenged.. as it stands now.. common law says HTA doesn't apply to private property.
 
raginduck said:
If someone on here wanted to give it a go... I'd put in some money for a properly prepared challenge... depending on the circumstances.
The private property sections needs to be challenged.. as it stands now.. common law says HTA doesn't apply to private property.
Click to expand...
Historically the HTA can be applied on private property, to which the public has free access. Mall parking lots and their connecting roads, for example, even if they are on completely private property.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Historically the HTA can be applied on private property, to which the public has free access. Mall parking lots and their connecting roads, for example, even if they are on completely private property.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree.. At least in Ontario. Not sure about rest of Canada.
If you do know of a case or ruling... or can find one... please share.
 
raginduck said:
I have to disagree.. At least in Ontario. Not sure about rest of Canada.
If you do know of a case or ruling... or can find one... please share.
Click to expand...
I'll have to do some digging. It was something that I read in one of the statutes, some time back, that specifically referenced public access.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I'll have to do some digging. It was something that I read in one of the statutes, some time back, that specifically referenced public access.
Click to expand...
I have a similar recollection but no easy reference. Something along the lines of if you stretch a chain across the driveway to prevent public access you are HTA exempt but if the public has access, the HTA could be applied (although it rarely was).
 
GreyGhost said:
I have a similar recollection but no easy reference. Something along the lines of if you stretch a chain across the driveway to prevent public access you are HTA exempt but if the public has access, the HTA could be applied (although it rarely was).
Click to expand...
I definitely have something similar rattling around the back of my brain. it keyed on freely available public access.
 
I've been looking myself.. and was before this thread...
I can't find anything that states the HTA applies to private property. But, I can find articles and cases that states it doesn't.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I can't remember the specifics, because it was so long ago, but they did win. The woman had pulled out to pass a transport truck and the transport accelerated, in order to block her from passing. There was oncoming traffic so she had to speed up significantly to get around the truck, which was when OPP clocked her.

*EDIT* Found it. On appeal it ended up changing how the stunt driving charge is applied. It was originally an "absolute liability offence" which means if you did it, you're guilty. Circumstances are irrelevant. It's now applied as a "strict liability offence" which means that if you did it, you're guilty, but you can use the defence that you used "all reasonable care" in the situation and had no recourse, as a defence.

www.thestar.com

'Stunt-driving' grandma gets reprieve from judge

Jane Raham admits she panicked when she pushed on the accelerator to overtake the tractor-trailer.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
Click to expand...
So much makes me see red.

A) If the truck accelerated to keep her from passing that is a legit stunt driving charge.

B) Did she get towed and suspended? If yes does she get compensation? It's all about punishent before trial. An absolute charge is also BS.

Quoting "Last year, the number of fatalities on OPP-patrolled roads dropped to 322 from 451 in 2007...

The Star article is from 2009. I'm sure the more recent Covid lock downs affected collision death rates two ways. Some died racing on empty highways and some lived because they didn't drive to work. How do you want to fudge the statistics?

Why pick 2007 as the start point. Was that just the introduction of HTA 172 or a nice high number for a comparison or both? What's happened since then? Weather also affects collision rates.
 
GreyGhost said:
I have a similar recollection but no easy reference. Something along the lines of if you stretch a chain across the driveway to prevent public access you are HTA exempt but if the public has access, the HTA could be applied (although it rarely was).
Click to expand...
The chain is a fuzzy barrier. It may only keep some people out and it may not contain bits from exploding engines or fireballs of fuel. There are reasonable grounds to protect the public from a dangerous activity. That also gets fuzzy as just because it involves a motor vehicle it doesn't mean a HTA offense.

Could a person popping a wheelie on a 50 foot driveway in suburbia could lose control and injure a bystander? I say yes.

There could also be two different charges, HTA stunt driving or crimnal code dangerous driving. As much as I detest HTA 172 it beats a criminal charge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom