Ain't nobody got time fo thatQuote:
Originally Posted by cjblair
Ain't nobody got time fo thatQuote:
Originally Posted by cjblair
I thought that was just a relic legacy button. You push it and it automatically posts "FIRST!" for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by cjblair
Do you guys think the CPO that issued the ticket needs to be present in court? I haven't prepared too much in the way of questioning the officer other than a couple things since he wasn't actually there.
Edit: Will give another small development to this.
The Crown knows that this all hinges around the act of "lane splitting".... he flat out told me over the phone. Told him it was about "Stunting" and he said Yah but it's the act of lane filtering that is bringing this whole thing to trial.
He also offered a plea deal recently. "Failure to maintain centre of traffic lane" (Violation of Section 15(5) of Rules of the Road Reg). I, of course, refused the deal immediately as I knew full well that cycles are exempt from that law. There is no point pleading guilty to a law that literally doesn't apply to cycles. I believe he wanted me to take the deal, drop the case and get out of his hair.
On another note, some of you will be happy to hear that I have stopped filtering at red lights this season. I feel disgusted in doing so but can't risk the demerits against me. I need my abstract to remain good so I keep in good standing with Uber and, now, the City of Red Deer since they are getting involved in regulating ride share.
How many fewer dollars and demerits would this plea have been? I got a feeling the answer is "hundreds and all of them" which means there aren't enough facepalm emojis on the internet to quantify the fail you have handed yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by 16hypen3sp
As a motorcyclist who filters constantly, I fully support OP taking the time to fight this. Absolutely ridiculous that we are prohibited from a behaviour that has been proven to increase rider safety considerably.
In the long run, does it though? At the light, for sure, but pissing off all the rednecks in this city makes it more dangerous in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by adamc
I live in Toronto so not so many pissed off rednecks.
People in Toronto generally don't give a fuck, maybe the odd suburbanite on a day trip down to the "big city" will give me the finger or yell something because I'm getting ahead of them in super dense traffic. :whocares: Most people seem to realize it's no net difference to them if I slide through, given the volume of traffic I am often through and out of everyone's way very quickly. Also, I'm greatly reducing the risk of getting rear ended.
He's fighting a stunting ticket, which is a completely open ended charge for distracting other motorists. He ain't helping anyone that wants to filter.Quote:
Originally Posted by adamc
You're forgetting that OP isn't out to get a reduction, he's trying to change the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePenIsMightier
(but yes, I agree completely. Taking the deal would obviously have been the right call.)
How is the law around filtering going to change if he’s fighting a stunting ticket? All that might happen is the court finds that stunning doesn’t cover filteringQuote:
Originally Posted by cjblair
Attachment 92299Quote:
Originally Posted by FraserB
I'm pretty sure this discussion occurred on page 1 :rofl:
This is a great thread. I think everyone has been pretty respectful and communicated clearly. I wish all threads were this good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePenIsMightier
Taking a plea for breaking a law that has nothing to do with motorcycles so I just go away and stop bothering the prosecutor? Nah.Quote:
Originally Posted by cjblair
We’re not changing the law. We are establishing that filtering isn’t stunting. Have to do this because splitting/filtering isn’t a term defined in the TSA - Alberta Transportations words, not mine. That and it’s clear in the complaint letter that driver has an issue with the act of filtering on the broken white lane markings. This is where the CPO throws the stunting charge at me. Whether it was the right charge, who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by FraserB
Precedent is not set by traffic court, so you'd only be establishing it in your single case, assuming you win. No other motorcyclist charged in identical circumstances would be able to point to your case as a defense against a stunting charge, nor would your win cause the definition of "stunting" to exclude filtering.Quote:
Originally Posted by 16hypen3sp
Seriously, have you looked at how broad the actual stunting rule is?Quote:
Originally Posted by 16hypen3sp
152(2) A person shall not do any of the following:
(e) perform or engage in any stunt or other activity that is likely to distract, startle or interfere with users of the highway;
(f) drive a vehicle so as to perform or engage in any stunt or other activity on a highway that is likely to distract, startle or interfere with other users of the highway;
Reference: https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/T06.pdf
The law is so broad that this poor guy in a wheelchair being distracting to other drivers is stunting lol.
https://globalnews.ca/news/2227211/a...on-wheelchair/
Here's another one, kid warning people of speed trap. Stunting!
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...cket-1.3991450
Best one yet, Fuck her right in the pussy!
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle24442762/
So yea, if wheelchair dude falls under that category, or as I mentioned on page 1 someone laying on the horn, or cheering outside the red mile, FHRITP, slow down signs, you have zero chance trying to prove filtering doesn't distract and/or startle other drivers.
Fucking back to page 1 we go! Good luck.
I was gonna say that someone already posted all of that.
I think it was me. Feels like a glitch in the Matrix.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExtraSlow
Well, this thread is full of niceness and positivety and good intentions. You'd best enjoy this particular glitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by rage2
OP is just making extraordinarily clear how little his time is worth
Thanks for the kind words adamc. Everything is worth a shot. And I have the time to pursue this at least once. Onward!!! lolQuote:
Originally Posted by adamc
I can't speak fully to this but there is case law on CanLII that has previous cases and rulings for stunting that a person can reference. I don't know if my case would end up there or what happens after the case is closed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BerserkerCatSplat
Absolutely. Stunting is a catch all that is probably used in a heavy handed manner by law enforcement. It would then be up to the prosecution to decide whether or not it was the correct charge or if a different charge is more applicable. In this case, the prosecutors exact words were "I feel a more appropriate charge would be 'failing to maintain centre of traffic lane'". My thoughts were 'No, because cycles are exempt from that law. Why offer something that isn't applicable to this case at all?' My response was "I respectfully decline and would still like to proceed to trial." It does indeed suck that it's a stunting charge involving all this debate. If I were originally charged with "failing to maintain centre of traffic lane' by the CPO, this thread would be way, way different. The links you provided, yah some of those don't bode well and are brutal, like the guy in the wheelchair... c'mon. However, none of those articles indicate an outcome of trial, or if they even got there.Quote:
Originally Posted by rage2
How so? We've all got to fight the man sometime. Sometimes it's even fun in the process, even if you lose!!! hahaha. It's all good dude. It's something that I want to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by killramos