What lesser offence? Bunda was charged with HTA172 right from square 1.
With specific application to filtering, the court made it quite clear that passing to the right of a vehicle is permitted only if that vehicle is indicating an intention to turn left and in the process of turning left or about to turn left, and then only if there is sufficient room without going off the pavement to do so. Good luck on trying to convince a cop that an entire line of vehicles stopped at a set of lights are all waiting to turn left, especially in a city that prohibits left turns at many intersections.
My mistake. I thought he was being charged with careless driving initially and not 172. In that case he had sufficient notice to prepare his defence (which he then seemed to blow).
In terms of passing to the right. As I said, you don't need to determine the vehicle is turing to the left, if there is sufficient room to pass on the right. The rider did not need to prove any vehicle was signalling left if he could prove he had sufficient room for his vehicle to the right. Now this seems a bit odd sure, because it only makes sense it IS POSSIBLE to pass in the first instance if there is room. As in, you simply pysically cannot pass if there isn't room. So just having room to complete the pass and only the pass is not enough to wave the onus of the passer to detect a left turn intention of the passee. In such a case once the pass is complete the passer (who was turned out to the right of the lane while conducting the pass) will have to return to the middle of the single lane, rather than continue to be to the far right after the pass is concluded. In this case one would have to see the left indication. However if there is room to pass to the right aaaaaaand continue in the same position on the right, without returning to the centre of the lane of the passee, then one need not see an left turn indication. A case in point would be 2 lanes, and if you were passing a car in the left lane, while you continued along after the pass in the right lane. In this case you would not need to see a left turn indicator. In the case of this rider we find that the road is a T junction and that he intended to turn right. If he was able to turn right and continue with sufficient room in a mutli (line) vehicle situation then he needn't worry about a left turn indicator. If however him and the car at the front were going to turn right, aaaaand in doing so there would be no room to proceed side by side, then he would have had to prove that the lead car was turning left. The following cars from the lead are not required to indicate a left turn to pass them as there was sufficient room in the lane before the turn, that he could pass to the right and neither trainling car was capable of turning to the right at that point also.
This frequently happens with bicycles and I'm surprised it is such a problem for the Justice. Often bicycles filter up the side right side of traffic next to cars, and once at the front of the line they stop and assess whether the lead car is turning right before proceeding, otherwise they may be subject to being side swiped by a right turning car as they may proceed forward.
So the act of filtering up to the front of the line of cars is not the problem here at all, it's what is done at the front of the line.
If this rider filtered to the front of the line, and believed the car to his left was indicating a left turn, either by indicator or posture, or posture or body language of the driver inside the car, then he was clear to filter (as long as there was room) and also proceed with his right hand turn at the T junction.
I personally don't believe both bike and car should make a turn together, as this would be lane sharing at speed and in a precarious position for the bike and car (too many unknowns and variables), so I would not advocate sharing the lane during a turn, even if the lane they would be turning onto had sufficient room to share also.
But again, filtering in stopped traffic at a jogging pace, with fingers on the brakes, even walking it slowly and wiggling past mirrors is in no way a stunt or dangerous.
So more to the point...the rider was fine to pass the 2 cars leading up to the lead car stopped at the light, whether they were indicating or not. They were stopped and incapable of a right turn and also there was room on the right to pass them AND safely continue past them in that lane. The lead stopped car presents a problem for this defendant however, as the lead car DOES have room to make a right turn and clip the rider, and eat up whatever space he may have if he proceeded past the lead car, even if they both turned to the right simultaneously. Sharing at speed is a clear case of lane splitting (beyond filtering) and has no chance of arguing it is safe. So the rider needed to assure the Justice that the lead car was in some way indicating to the left, which could be via a turn signal or posturing of some kind. The cop on the other hand has absolutely NO way to counter any claim of the defendant as he has NO view of the lead car whatso ever!!!! This is entirely a judgment call on the part of the rider, and neither the cop or the Justice can suppose the lead car turned or was going to turn right unless of course it did turn right, thus proving the rider's judgement call to be in error!!!
As far as it stands there is no proof or evidence or testimony that the rider made an incorrect judgement of the lead car's intentions. The cop does not say the lead car did not intend to turn left, nor did the car actually turn right!!!! The rider did not actually need to see the left turn indicator of the lead car. And by default at a T junction, if the lead car did not indicate an intention, then the lead car has commited an offence also as his actions can potentially impede another vehicle!!!
If the cop (which he didn't) could say with certainty, the lead car did not signal any direction at a T-junction, where also the riders filtering to the right were signalling to the right and proceeding where room was available, the cop should have pulled over the lead car for potentially impeding the riders filtering to the right!!!
<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s142s1. -->142.<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s142s1. -->
(1) The driver or operator of a vehicle upon a highway
before turning to the left or right at any intersection or into a private road or driveway or from one lane for traffic to another lane for traffic or to leave the roadway
shall first see that the movement can be made in safety, and if the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by the movement shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver or operator of the other vehicle of the intention to make the movement. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 142 (1).
LET ME BE CLEAR HERE: If the cop cannot testify to the indication of the lead car, then there is no proof but the rider's word. If the cop can testify that the lead car did not signal left or right...THEN THE LEAD CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED FOR VIOLATION OF 142. The indication to turn MUST BE CLEAR TO AFFECTED VEHICLES!!!! Meaning if the lead car did not make it plain as day to the filtering bikes, of his intention to turn right or left, then it is the fault of the lead car. However, if the lead car was postured in such a way, perhaps casually stopped at the light and not indicating any intention of a right turn (at a T junction), then by default, the rider is correct to infer the car was not turning right, and with only one option (left) remaining, that was indication enough for the rider! So by stating to the justice that due to his calculation of the lead cars behavior and indication, the rider in fact did illustrate care and attention and a behavior of awarness and no intention to stunt or pass closely to a vehicle for the sake of it.
So on what basis does the Justice assume the rider acted in a STUNTING manner?
His word that he did not weave around the mirrors apparently was just plain ignored and the cop had no evidence other than he saw them "weave". Either way, weaving at a low speed of 5kph is not unsafe and again the cop is completely unable to testify as to their speeds when filtering, thus making his testimony of the situation as "unsafe" as his premise for 172 also invalid. Furthermore the cop does not in any way establish INTENTION to pass closely to the vehicles to the left but rather enforces their intention was to make a right turn! The key here is also motive which seems largely ignored!
The nature of a stunt is that the stunt in and of itself is the objective! That's why the clause has the point of INTENTION written into it. If you pass closely to a car or pedestrian in a parking lot at very low speeds to park, the stunting clause is not applicable due in part to speed (relative safety) and the driver's intention.
If however you are weaving between cars attempting to pass increasingly closer to a vehicle, like a game of chicken, and that in and of itself is your motivation and / or goal, then this IS A STUNT!
The application of 172 here, to restate is completly insane, and to support it invites abuses your way too gents! Stick up for this conviction and you're in for an ugly abusive riding future.
If you want to talk about setting precedent, you 172 defenders are setting it all day and everyday!
