OHTA.ca

Interesting article from a licensed paralegal about the new Stunting Laws, and what's actualy happening in the courts, and what options you have if you get this charged:

It is respectfully submitted that coupling absolute liability offences with the punishment of imprisonment violates s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Does s. 172(1) (5)(a) and (b) of the Highway Traffic Act violates s. 8 of the Charter ?

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

(A seizure under s. 8 is the taking by a public authority of a thing belonging to a person against that person's will. )

Section 172(1)(5)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act makes it mandatory upon the officer to seize the vehicle in question and affords no discretion. It offers no protection to the owner of the property.

Full Article At http://www.imintrouble.ca/blog/index.ph ... -_it_means

-----------------

The points made in the article regarding why the seizure of the vehicle is unjustified are very good. I could agree with (although I do not, for most of the "stunt driving" offences) a roadside licence suspension on the grounds that the right to operate a motor vehicle on a public road is a privilege and the driver's licence is property of the province. The vehicle seizure, in my view, is overboard. If someone is genuinely street racing, slap the cuffs on them. It's already a criminal offence.

In addition to vehicle impoundment to the tune of $1000, I have 3 specific objections to the law:

1) While driver/vehicle licensing is under the Province's jurisdiction, the bottom line is that a license suspension is a form of punishment. The constable is supposed to lay charges and not dispense punishment on the side of the road. That should be left to the court system.

2)

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

3) Insurance companies can obtain a client's suspension record and raise their rates accordingly.

FiReSTaRT wrote:2)

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

As a motorcycle rider, often going on long trips, the MTO's own Motorcycle Handbook recommends standing up on the pegs to stretch the legs and rest the posterior. This "anti-ghostriding" provision could easily result in impoundment of my vehicle and suspension of my licence..

The law is meant for ghost riding and delivery people sitting on the wrong side of the vehicle where neither have physical control over any of the controls.

As far as the MC stuff. It is a suggestion to slightly raise yourself off the seat for a large bump to let your legs absorb more impact to prevent the "bull affect" and being bucked off. If your legs start cramping it is recommended to stop, not drive while standing.

Well, it can also be used to prevent cramping, thus extending the leg of the trip before you need to pull over and do some real leg-stretching. That is especially useful when going back to civilisation and trying to make it before dark, when all of the furry critters come out to play.

Bear, this question is directed specifically at you, as a member of the law enforcement community: While I am aware of the intent of the law, have you ever heard of it being wrongfully applied in this context?

FiReSTaRT wrote:Bear, this question is directed specifically at you, as a member of the law enforcement community: While I am aware of the intent of the law, have you ever heard of it being wrongfully applied in this context?

I had my own MC, but sold it. I now have the priviledge of riding while working

I have never seen or heard of any of the 172 being improperly applied. I have only seen the 50km+ and causing the tires to spin on a turn (MV lost control over a lawn and into a house)

I asked co-workers and none would even consider "raising ones' butt off a seat of an MC" part of this......it was mentioned for the ghost riders again.

Only a handful of officers province-wide would even think of stopping a motorcycle for that kind of offence. Conversely, I would think that they might've been referring to this... although I'd rather see a Dangerous Driving charge issued.

I think the proper term for him would be "EPIC FAIL."

Lol, what a dope. I hope he got a good rash for future reference.

Thanks Bear. However, you raised another possible concern with 172. For work, I get to drive a p/u truck on occasion. Ofcourse, the throttle response is different than on my Jetta with a "mighty" 75hp diesel engine. When the truck isn't loaded and the pavement is wet, the tires sometimes do slip just enough to make a quick chirp. While that falls far short of a burnout, is it possible that I could get charged under 172 for that?

FiReSTaRT wrote:Thanks Bear. However, you raised another possible concern with 172. For work, I get to drive a p/u truck on occasion. Ofcourse, the throttle response is different than on my Jetta with a "mighty" 75hp diesel engine. When the truck isn't loaded and the pavement is wet, the tires sometimes do slip just enough to make a quick chirp. While that falls far short of a burnout, is it possible that I could get charged under 172 for that?

I would hope not.

I don't think on any rain or snow even with a fishtail would anyone be convicted of the 172. In good weather I would stop them and check for impairment and that's it. A 5-10ft squawk might get an unnecessary noise ticket.

Oddly enough, I don't think doing a deliberate burnout in a straight line falls under the definition of a stunt. This is what covers spinning tires:

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.

Squishy wrote:Oddly enough, I don't think doing a deliberate burnout in a straight line falls under the definition of a stunt. This is what covers spinning tires:

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.

No commas, so must be turning to get the ticket. Unless you are spinning doughnuts (no pun intended )...