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

[revelations]

^ no they want to argue that lane splitting in the way they did it, is technically not illegal - even though the ticket was for stunting.

The articulation for why the stunting ticket was merited will have to be argued by the crown.

[16hypen3sp]

We have to establish that a lane legally exists there according to the definition of a lane and then argue that a vehicle proceeding in their own lane to wait at the stop line within their own lane does not warrant stunting. That's really what it all comes down to.

[ExtraSlow]

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

Is your goal to get a reduction or are you banking on the witness not showing up and having it tossed?

OP wants to change the traffic laws and set legal precedence that lane splitting is legal and good.

[revelations]

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

We have to establish that a lane legally exists there according to the definition of a lane and then argue that a vehicle proceeding in their own lane to wait at the stop line within their own lane does not warrant stunting. That's really what it all comes down to.

You will have to argue that you did not:

perform or engage in any stunt or other activity on a roadway that is likely to distract, startle, or interfere with other users of the roadway

Obviously the bus driver was distracted.

[Disoblige]

So what happens when the Alberta Motorcycle Handbook says this:
https://www.transportation.alberta.c...ndbook2010.pdf
Page 50 of book (page 53 of .pdf)

I agree lane splitting should be legal, but the handbook does say not to do it.

[16hypen3sp]

Being in my own lane and pulling up to the stop line within my own lane is no different than the bus driver pulling up to the stop line within their own lane. No different than the pick up truck to my left pulling up to stop line within their own lane.

If I'm in a lane at the stop line and I get a stunting ticket, everyone else should be getting a stunting ticket. Hence why establishing a lane lawfully exists there is very important to my case.

[ExtraSlow]

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

Being in my own lane and pulling up to the stop line within my own lane is no different than the bus driver pulling up to the stop line within their own lane. No different than the pick up truck to my left pulling up to stop line within their own lane.

If I'm in a lane at the stop line and I get a stunting ticket, everyone else should be getting a stunting ticket. Hence why establishing a lane lawfully exists there is very important to my case.

I'm stoked for this, and I think it's awesome that you are willing to move forward with it. Most people, myself included, would pay the fine and move on, but it does take people with some dedication and balls to affect change. you go brother!

[16hypen3sp]

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

I'm stoked for this, and I think it's awesome that you are willing to move forward with it. Most people, myself included, would pay the fine and move on, but it does take people with some dedication and balls to affect change. you go brother!

Hell yah dude. As I said before in this thread, we have to at least try. Give it a shot, if I lose, I lose. Such is life.

I'm excited.... but also nervous of the actual courtroom.

[ThePenIsMightier]

Thinking more about it... I assume the stiff "stunting" violation is because it occurred with/around a school bus. The concept is PERHAPS that it's an illegal act near (for all anyone knows) a bus full of gifted children that's A: exposing them to unnecessary danger and B: setting a bad example for them.

Let me clearly state that I'm hypothesizing, here. I am not saying "you deserve it".

[Strider]

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

We have to establish that a lane legally exists there according to the definition of a lane and then argue that a vehicle proceeding in their own lane to wait at the stop line within their own lane does not warrant stunting. That's really what it all comes down to.

oh fuck, not this again.

OP has gone full Mar

[ExtraSlow]

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

oh fuck, not this again.

OP has gone full Mar

[16hypen3sp]

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

Thinking more about it... I assume the stiff "stunting" violation is because it occurred with/around a school bus. The concept is PERHAPS that it's an illegal act near (for all anyone knows) a bus full of gifted children that's A: exposing them to unnecessary danger and B: setting a bad example for them.

Let me clearly state that I'm hypothesizing, here. I am not saying "you deserve it".

I could see that, especially coming from the bus driver. "You can't do that around me!" type of logic.

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

oh fuck, not this again.

OP has gone full Mar

How so? Both the complainant and officer letters clearly state that they have a problem with the specific act of driving down the broken white line to the stop line. The definition of a lane clearly spells out that the lines on the road surface are not the definition; a longitudinal strip of the roadway is.

But yes, I will agree that this sounds like a Mar thread.

[Tik-Tok]

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

Hence why establishing a lane lawfully exists there is very important to my case.

Except it won't fly with the judge IMO. The focus you make with the safety act, "sufficient width to accommodate the passage of a single line of vehicles", is intended for some kind of obstruction in which a line of vehicles has to get by. Otherwise they would have just said "sufficient width to accommodate the passage of a single vehicle". Also a single line-up would be meant to included most vehicles on the road, not a line-up made of bikes only. Also if the judge agreed with your interpretation of the law, he/she would be setting precedent that would allow a full sized pick-up to lane filter between cars, just because there's room to do so.

More power to you if you can convince the judge otherwise. I hope you hired a good lawyer.

[revelations]

Small point, but traffic court 'judges' are known as JPs - and are properly addressed as "your worship".

[Buster]

Id be seriously hard pressed to refer to anyone as your worship without laughing.

[revelations]

My info is old:

"It used to be the case that justices of the peace were properly referred to as Your Worship, but this practice is fading somewhat, and it is now acceptable to refer to them as Your Honour."

https://wiki.clicklaw.bc.ca/index.ph...s_the_Judge%3F

[Nufy]

Try not to use 'you people" when referring to the Judges...

[16hypen3sp]

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

Except it won't fly with the judge IMO. The focus you make with the safety act, "sufficient width to accommodate the passage of a single line of vehicles", is intended for some kind of obstruction in which a line of vehicles has to get by. Otherwise they would have just said "sufficient width to accommodate the passage of a single vehicle". Also a single line-up would be meant to included most vehicles on the road, not a line-up made of bikes only. Also if the judge agreed with your interpretation of the law, he/she would be setting precedent that would allow a full sized pick-up to lane filter between cars, just because there's room to do so.

More power to you if you can convince the judge otherwise. I hope you hired a good lawyer.

This may very well be the case. But I have to somewhat disagree. There have been many times where I'll be in my truck in the furthest right lane at the stop line at a red light. Another vehicle, truck or car or cycle, wants to turn right and sneaks between my truck and the curb and proceeds to make their right turn. Effectively, they "filtered" to make their turn.

Are you saying it is illegal to do that? I don't think so. According to the definition, there is sufficient width to accommodate the passage of vehicles.

The law doesn't say it needs to accommodate all types of vehicles. Of course this could very well be argued in court. I think the Crown may press on what sufficient width actually means as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for the info on how to address the Judge. My plan is to just address him/her by "Your Honour".

[firebane]

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

This may very well be the case. But I have to somewhat disagree. There have been many times where I'll be in my truck in the furthest right lane at the stop line at a red light. Another vehicle, truck or car or cycle, wants to turn right and sneaks between my truck and the curb and proceeds to make their right turn. Effectively, they "filtered" to make their turn.

Are you saying it is illegal to do that? I don't think so. According to the definition, there is sufficient width to accommodate the passage of vehicles.

The law doesn't say it needs to accommodate all types of vehicles. Of course this could very well be argued in court. I think the Crown may press on what sufficient width actually means as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for the info on how to address the Judge. My plan is to just address him/her by "Your Honour".

This is a fair statement... but the difference is one vehicle is stopping and the other is not. But at the same time if you can find a law that says its legal or not legal it could help in the argument.

[revelations]

You can also look up revelant case law to this situation as well.