I got a stunting ticket in the mail. Dash cam user complained to police about me.

[mr2mike]

15(6)A person driving a vehicle shall not drive the vehicle in such a manner so that the vehicle occupies space in 2 traffic lanes
(a) except during the act of passing another vehicle or changing lanes, or
(b) unless road conditions make the use of a single traffic lane impractical.

Based on the picture and the fact this ticket was issued after and no peace officer present, I would choose two routes.
Got to JOP and plead guilty to a lesser offense of a traffic lane violation as you believe you were not stunting but did indeed straddle the two lanes.
http://www.thepointman.ca/offenses-demerit-points.php

Or take a chance, go to court on this, hope the witness doesn't show up. Then it's quashed. Or if they do, argue the definition of stunting and what zipdoa said, that you were not the operator of the bike at that time. Bring friend's that have your same stature.
115(2)(e) perform or engage in any stunt or other activity that is likely to distract, startle or interfere with users of the highway.

If the witness is the photographer in the picture you posted, they're using a phone while driving.

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You can probably get off solely based off the fact that they can't prove YOU were the one riding the bike.

No he can't. It's an RO ticket.

As mentioned 1000000x, he needs to focus his defence on what the unnamed driver of his motorcycle was doing does not fit the definition of stunting. Everything else will be ignored. I don't even know why we're talking about lanes here, has nothing to do with what he was charged with.

The bigger question is if $500 is worth his time dealing with this. This has no record, no demerits, no impact on insurance. It's purely a cash grab. I would just pay it and move on, not worth my time.

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No he can't. It's an RO ticket.

As mentioned 1000000x, he needs to focus his defence on what the unnamed driver of his motorcycle was doing does not fit the definition of stunting. Everything else will be ignored. I don't even know why we're talking about lanes here, has nothing to do with what he was charged with.

The bigger question is if $500 is worth his time dealing with this. This has no record, no demerits, no impact on insurance. It's purely a cash grab. I would just pay it and move on, not worth my time.

^Winning!!!

I tried...
"You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later."

[killramos]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No he can't. It's an RO ticket.

As mentioned 1000000x, he needs to focus his defence on what the unnamed driver of his motorcycle was doing does not fit the definition of stunting. Everything else will be ignored. I don't even know why we're talking about lanes here, has nothing to do with what he was charged with.

The bigger question is if $500 is worth his time dealing with this. This has no record, no demerits, no impact on insurance. It's purely a cash grab. I would just pay it and move on, not worth my time.

OP has the bright idea he is going to single handedly make lane splitting legal by winning a traffic court case.

[Buster]

I found OPs theme song

[16hypen3sp]

The cop issued the ticket because a motorcyclist was driving between stopped vehicles. That's what's written in the letter. He is specifically concerned about the movement of a cycle between stopped vehicles. That's why the lane talk and lane definition is in here.

So it really comes down to - Is it stunting to use your own lane to get to the stop line. One would think not.

[16hypen3sp]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The bigger question is if $500 is worth his time dealing with this. This has no record, no demerits, no impact on insurance. It's purely a cash grab. I would just pay it and move on, not worth my time.

I thought about this as well. Going to court will incriminate? I take it, it will no longer be an RO ticket.

The problem with paying for it and moving on is that it's going to happen again. It's not like I'm going to stop ever doing the safe act of lane filtering at red lights. It would be nice to have some case law on my side that says "This isn't stunting." Kind of a toss up... Pay or go down the rabbit hole and see what happens?

[FraserB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I thought about this as well. Going to court will incriminate? I take it, it will no longer be an RO ticket.

The problem with paying for it and moving on is that it's going to happen again. It's not like I'm going to stop ever doing the safe act of lane filtering at red lights. It would be nice to have some case law on my side that says "This isn't stunting." Kind of a toss up... Pay or go down the rabbit hole and see what happens?

Was the ticket issued for 115(2)(e)? Because there really isn't any point arguing about lane definitions if the Crown's arguments are going to be that filtering distracts, startles or interferes with another user of the road. Your arguments should show why your actions don't do any of those things and that's it.

[16hypen3sp]

@FraserB

No. The ticket is issued for 115(2)(F).

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I thought about this as well. Going to court will incriminate? I take it, it will no longer be an RO ticket.

The problem with paying for it and moving on is that it's going to happen again. It's not like I'm going to stop ever doing the safe act of lane filtering at red lights. It would be nice to have some case law on my side that says "This isn't stunting." Kind of a toss up... Pay or go down the rabbit hole and see what happens?

Let's say you win and it's not stunting. Can still charge you with it and go through this shit again. Or next ticket is just a different charge. Point is, filtering is not legal in Canada but you want to get away with it. I mean look at all the shit they can charge you with.

http://www.thepointman.ca/offenses-demerit-points.php

Drive near centre line 2(1)(b) 2
Driving left of centre 12(1) 3
Unsafe lane change 15(4) 2
Failing to drive in middle of marked lane 15(5) 2
Straddling 2 lanes 15(6) 2
Proceeding when unsafe 38 3
Passing vehicle stopped at crosswalk 41(2) 4
Careless driving charge 115(2)(b) 6

Shit's so open to interpretation, that's a 10 second guess at what you can interpret as a charge for filtering.

Also, no idea if going to court converts it from RO to a real ticket with demerits. I assume that can't happen if you don't ID yourself as the driver. I've never actually known anyone go to court on an RO.

[Strider]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

OP has the bright idea he is going to single handedly make lane splitting legal by winning a traffic court case.

Which at best, he'll be able to set precedent that filtering isn't stunting, but not make lane splitting legal.

[Buster]

Is OP willing to let a car pass him in the same "lane" when he's on his motorcycle and underway?

My guess is that if a car tried to "filter past him" on the road that he would immediately rage out.

[phil98z24]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No he can't. It's an RO ticket.

As mentioned 1000000x, he needs to focus his defence on what the unnamed driver of his motorcycle was doing does not fit the definition of stunting. Everything else will be ignored. I don't even know why we're talking about lanes here, has nothing to do with what he was charged with.

The bigger question is if $500 is worth his time dealing with this. This has no record, no demerits, no impact on insurance. It's purely a cash grab. I would just pay it and move on, not worth my time.

Exactly.

OP, this isn’t about the lanes and your other arguments that simply won’t work. It’s the activity being done and whether it was stunting. You can get a stunting ticket for a legal activity if it’s done in a manner likely to cause a distraction, startle, etc. and you seem to be missing this. It’s not about legality of lane splitting. It’s if it could cause distraction, startle, interference, etc. That’s what you need to go after. Now that I’ve repeated it a few times in different ways and others have said the same, does it make sense?

To reemphasize, drop the legality of lane splitting. You’re barking up the wrong tree, man.

[FraserB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

@FraserB

No. The ticket is issued for 115(2)(F).

Same arguments, make the Crown prove that filtering at a light distracts, startles or interferes with other users. But to be fair, they probably could make the argument that it meets at least one of those.

[16hypen3sp]

This is what I found on CanLII regarding examples of stunting. This is from the R vs Wells case (the guy with the FUCK HARPER sign). Unsure if anything really pertains to this case tho. The 'squeegee kid' is mentioned.

Courts have found the following activities to constitute “stunts” as that term is used in the TSA, s.115(2)(e):
• Passing within one foot of a police vehicle parked at the side of the road with its emergency lights activated while travelling at an excessive speed and honking the horn: R v Sidhu, 2015 YKTC 46 (CanLII)

• Driving a motorcycle for a distance with the front wheel in the air; a “wheelie” or “catwalk”: R v Beaudoin, 2009 SKQB 113 (CanLII) (“Beaudoin”)

• Swerving into the lane of oncoming traffic and then back across that lane to make a right hand turn at an intersection: R v Young, 2008 SKQB 82 (CanLII)

• Excessively speeding up a vehicle’s engine to a high pitch and then speeding: R v Burton (1984), 29 M.V.R. 229 (Sask.Q.B.)

[84] Courts have found the following activities not to constitute “stunts” as that term is used in the TSA, s.115(2)(e):
• Skateboarding down a hill in a national park: Brown

• Member of a street church ministry setting up and using speakers and an amplification system in a park and on a street/sidewalk: Pawlowski

• Exhibiting an “horrific” and large photograph of a dead foetus to passing motorists: R v Whatcott, 2004 SKQB 413 (CanLII)

• “Squeegee kid” washing the windows of cars stopped at traffic lights: James

• Prostitute peering into the window of a motor vehicle that approached her and motioning the car over with her head: R v Jones, 1983 ABCA 70 (CanLII) (“Jones”)

• Turning headlights on and off, likely to warn of an impending “radar trap”: Tremblay

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/do...&resultIndex=1

[cjblair]

Mar, is that you?

[Maxx Mazda]

So, did the guy pay her to piss into his car, or was she doing it pro bono?

Edit: PEERING not PEEING I’m a dumbass

[16hypen3sp]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is OP willing to let a car pass him in the same "lane" when he's on his motorcycle and underway?

My guess is that if a car tried to "filter past him" on the road that he would immediately rage out.

Yes. Has happened many times in the past. No, I would not rage out. I share the road with fellow users and I don't get upset when someone performs a simple passing maneuver.



So, I guess the general consensus here is - filtering by motorcycle is illegal and guilty of stunting? That really sucks guys. I really don't want to sit on my bike in the crush zone. But, thanks for all the constructive criticism in this thread. Interesting discussion.

[killramos]

I think the consensus is:

Filtering is illegal and you should count your blessings that all you were charged with was stunting and pay your fine, be thankful that you didn’t net a more serious charge ( which is likely what’s going to happen when you try to argue the legality of filtering in court lol).

[CompletelyNumb]

You're lucky it's a RO ticket. Just ask for a reduction. They rarely have interest in going to trial for tickets.