BC 299 km/h suspect not guilty.

[fastar1]

Forum Sponsor

Regardless of the legalities it's one more nail in the coffin for reasonable insurance rates and any sway we might get from the general public.

Insurers don't change their rates based on events that cost them $0. As for public opinion, the damage was done with the viewing of the video. The general public won't hold it against us that he was let off.

Nice to see some intelligent people on the forum. Careful though, might start to scare the panel of experts we have residing here.

Please tell us what part of his post was so intelligent, oh enlightened non-expert one?

 

[-D-]

Regardless of the legalities it's one more nail in the coffin for reasonable insurance rates and any sway we might get from the general public.

Why do riders actually believe that the general public care about your hobby and toys?
It's your problem not theirs. They don't like bikes, get over it, accept it.

 

[Golluk]

I hadn't actually watched the video until just now, and I figured how bad could it really be. And my mind was blown by how dangerous that was. Though he did actually avoid an SUV changes lanes fairly easily by the looks of it.

 

[awyala]

they need to extend the 407etr throughout canada and turn it into a superhighway like the autobahn.

^ yes!

 

[Low rider]

I'm not exactly sure of your meaning here.
But for me, riding isn't a hobby. I ride to work every day.
Some other people use a motorcycle as their only mode of transportation. so calling it a hobby is wrong in so many ways.

Why do riders actually believe that the general public care about your hobby and toys?
It's your problem not theirs. They don't like bikes, get over it, accept it.

 

[-D-]

I'm not exactly sure of your meaning here.
But for me, riding isn't a hobby. I ride to work every day.
Some other people use a motorcycle as their only mode of transportation. so calling it a hobby is wrong in so many ways.

Thanks for not making assumptions.
What I mean is if you ride a bike for whatever reason and for whatever purpose the general public does not care.
The vast majority of people do not like bikes because they view them as death traps. They also do not want their children riding a bike either therefore they show opposition and disdain towards the machine itself (not the person on the machine).

 

[GentlemanRacer]

Err...burglars have two legs and are generally male....they aren't my brothers. Just because someone has a bike doesn't mean ****....

I give more credit to someone who rides a bike. If you ride a motorcycle, even if you are a prick, you probably have a better sense of what it means to take responsibility for yourself, you don't have many wishy washy opinions about what society owes you, and in other areas of your life you are apt to solve problems with the figurative throttle before the brakes.

I mean sure, there are lots of tourists with pretty toys, but my experience has been that someone who rides appreciates something different. Pity the guy lost his bike, the court said he was not-guilty. Apparently process doesn't really mean anything if they think you've done something.

 

[nobbie48]

One more nail in the coffin perhaps or the fact that this is national news indicates how rare it is. I'd be more concerned about all the regular sportbikers doing a piddly buckfourty/fifty everyday. And looking queer doing it. It's all about optics.

Unless corrected, perception becomes reality. The media is unlikely to correct any misperceptions. It wouldn't sell air time. The weaving is quite common. The only thing different in this case is the numbers made it sensational. No one getting killed at 299 kph is more sensational than someone killing themselves at 130.

 

[inreb]

Unless corrected, perception becomes reality. The media is unlikely to correct any misperceptions. It wouldn't sell air time. The weaving is quite common. The only thing different in this case is the numbers made it sensational. No one getting killed at 299 kph is more sensational than someone killing themselves at 130.

ok you win, its one more nail....

 

[LoneRonin]

Not guilty means squat. The legal process alone was punishment enough. Hopefully he learned some life lessons.

All the legal process does is teach you the loopholes, how to work the system and how not to get caught next time...I'm a delinquent SOB that speaks from experience.

Ya I dunno any more, the article describes it as his bike.

It was his just like every kid who has a SS insured under his parents name says its his. It was registered in his mom's name. He had a suspended license and twenty something tickets...

 

[hedo2002]

I will respond to a few common misconceptions stated here. First to the poster who said he should sue the media for slander. This is simply not possible they were simply reporting the information as it was provided to them. Who provided it? Likely the police, but he can't sue them as they released the information in what the court would rule was "good faith" in that at the time they "believed" what they were saying to be true, (this was backed up as they had charged him). This happens all the time a person is charged with say sexual assault and it is reported in the media then the person is found not guilty. They have no recourse against the media as they simply reported what was true. In this case the media reports were true, they reported he was charged with the driving offences and the speed that was seen on the video none of that is slanderous in any court.

As for being compensated for the seizure of the bike one would have to see how the law is written. IF the law was written with a "remedy" if the person charged is found not guilty, then "his mother" will be compensated. If there is no such provision then she will have to sue in an attempt to recover the costs of the bike. BUT there is a good chance she would lose as the police, (read the judges ruling, He was satisfied that this was indeed the same bike seen in the video), apparently had the correct bike. So the bike was seized under the act which permits seizure of "the vehicle" It likely doesn't say "only if the driver/rider is convicted" So the crown will argue they seized the right bike. Given it wasn't reported stolen then his mother has no defense against her bike being seized.

If this is indeed how the act reads then I agree it was drafted wrong, but let's blame not the police nor the crown, but the legislators who wrote the law. The police and crown are merely enforcing a poorly crafted and flawed law.

Now I suspect he won't be riding for a VERY long time... In BC the insurance is owned and administered by the provincial gov't. If the mother didn't have her son listed as an operator, and there had been an accident it likely would not have been covered as they would claim it was insurance fraud. Either way i doubt BC insurance will insure another SS bike in her name, (especially if she doesn't have a bike licence and the sons is suspended...lol)

 

[fastar1]

It was his just like every kid who has a SS insured under his parents name says its his. It was registered in his mom's name. He had a suspended license and twenty something tickets...

Makes sense. In which case they should be prosecuted for insurance fraud. If you're right then I'm sure the guy has been seen and recorded all sorts of places on the bike, as opposed to his mom who probably didn't have a license as hedo said.

 

[Baggsy]

Meh, ... Car's dont change lanes that quickly, pretty easy to avoid. ...

I do.

...

Now I suspect he won't be riding for a VERY long time... In BC the insurance is owned and administered by the provincial gov't. If the mother didn't have her son listed as an operator, and there had been an accident it likely would not have been covered as they would claim it was insurance fraud. Either way i doubt BC insurance will insure another SS bike in her name, (especially if she doesn't have a bike licence and the sons is suspended...lol)

Um, you don't need proof of insurance or even a license to purchase an SS bike, do you?

 

[hedo2002]

I do.



Um, you don't need proof of insurance or even a license to purchase an SS bike, do you?

Actually you DO need insurance on a bike your buying IF it is financed. The dealership won't give you the bike without seeing the insurance paperwork. If the bike is purchased used, then no need to insure it. But to register it you HAVE to declare to the MTO, (Service Ontario), that the bike is insured, (provide insurance co name and policy number), to get plates. When it was actually MTO employees they used to ask to see your insurance slip before issuing the plate, nbow you just have to provide the info and it says on the form it is an offence to provide false info.

No I said I doubt he will be riding anytime soon, as I doubt mom will put his "new SS" on HER insurance, It is highly likely given all the media coverage this got and the fact they said the bike was registered and insured under moms name, that BC insurance has likely "flagged" her file. After all she was letting her son, (with a suspended drivers licence), drive her bike. If she doesn't have a valid motorcycle licence, (which here in Ontario you don't need to BUY the bike, BUT you DO need to insure it in your name, and it is likely the case in BC as well).

So let me review. I said he likely won't be riding for a long time because:
1. his licence is already suspended.
2. mom is unlikely to register another bike for him in HER name, and get it insured.
3. BC insurance is unlikely to issue her a new policy if she can't prove SHE has a motorcycle licence, (they know her son rides and if SHE doesn't have a licence to ride then why does SHE need a bike and insurance?

 

[unL33T]

Meh, looks like a pretty standard hooligan run. Car's dont change lanes that quickly, pretty easy to avoid. Still think anyone stupid enough to take video of themselves breaking the law deserves what they have coming to them!

Yeah they change lanes slowly all the time. They always check their mirrors first, too.

Thanks for not making assumptions.
What I mean is if you ride a bike for whatever reason and for whatever purpose the general public does not care.
The vast majority of people do not like bikes because they view them as death traps. They also do not want their children riding a bike either therefore they show opposition and disdain towards the machine itself (not the person on the machine).

Most people don't really mind the machines. They just assume most people that ride them ride like the general idiots I see out there every day in the summer.

 

[CafeRay]

They need to extend the 407ETR throughout Canada and turn it into a superhighway like the autobahn.

or, go to a race track. Lots of people die on the autobahn.

 

[CafeRay]

I hadn't actually watched the video until just now, and I figured how bad could it really be. And my mind was blown by how dangerous that was. Though he did actually avoid an SUV changes lanes fairly easily by the looks of it.

It was stupid behaviour, he got off on a technicality, and idiots here rejoice.

There are places to legally ride as fast as you want and prove your skills. At those speeds, he would have killed someone if he hit a car.

 

[N3WMAN]

As for being compensated for the seizure of the bike one would have to see how the law is written. IF the law was written with a "remedy" if the person charged is found not guilty, then "his mother" will be compensated. If there is no such provision then she will have to sue in an attempt to recover the costs of the bike. BUT there is a good chance she would lose as the police, (read the judges ruling, He was satisfied that this was indeed the same bike seen in the video), apparently had the correct bike. So the bike was seized under the act which permits seizure of "the vehicle" It likely doesn't say "only if the driver/rider is convicted" So the crown will argue they seized the right bike. Given it wasn't reported stolen then his mother has no defense against her bike being seized.

The issue is the bike was seized without a warrant which the police admitted was required.

 

[N3WMAN]

or, go to a race track. Lots of people die on the autobahn.

The death rate on the autobahn is half that of Ontario roads...

It was stupid behaviour, he got off on a technicality, and idiots here rejoice.

There are places to legally ride as fast as you want and prove your skills. At those speeds, he would have killed someone if he hit a car.

Not being able to prove he was riding the bike is a technicality? LOL

 

[viccont]

Whatever cops and drama lovers say here, law is the law (proof beyond reasonable doubt) had to be established by crown failing to do so is this result. I could emagine how much he spent on defence.

Forum Sponsor