|
|
|
Okay, Who Did It This Time? :D
- Thread starter Maverick95
- Start date
The rider with apparently only an M1 license got caught. It was a nice catch.
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityn...k-motorcyclist-in-250-kilometre-an-hour-chase
roadtoruin
Well-known member
vid description says he got caught.
Turbo, when is a speeder getting caught not a "nice catch"? time for some new lines bud. Do you rub one out every time you hear of someone getting getting booked for 172? be honest now
Turbo, when is a speeder getting caught not a "nice catch"? time for some new lines bud. Do you rub one out every time you hear of someone getting getting booked for 172? be honest now
Seriously that is a nice catch... Do you really want a dude with minimal bike experience riding around like a maniac?
I know I don't.
I know I don't.
Turbo gets his facts right at least.. this happened in 2007. HTA 172 wasn't around then.
Probably not, but if someone has the capacity to do that, then they probably have the capacity to do it when there IS traffic.
The initial speeding was on Yonge Street, not the 407. The bike had no license plates on it. At one point the rider with passenger on board ran a red light when the cops tried to signal him to stop there. Several times the cops were right with the bike and it still refused to stay stopped. I'd say the rider did more than enough to warrant any expense incurred in tracking and finally arresting him.
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityn...k-motorcyclist-in-250-kilometre-an-hour-chase
He ended up getting charged criminally with dangerous driving, twice with flight from police, and with criminal public mischief for the false theft report on the bike.
On top of that the bike was towed and impounded. He would have been much better off taking a hit under HTA172 had it been available at the time. HTA172 came into effect 6 weeks later.
Are you saying that the HTA 172 has to be applied exclusively and cannot be paired up with any other charge? If so then yes, you're right. Otherwise he would be worse off.
Such a stoopid reason to run too.
Based on the initial reason for him being pulled over (not the speeding that occured from his trying to flee), I've gotten away with much worse with nothing but a verbal warning. If he would of stopped instantly and didn't act all tough-like while speaking to the officer, he probably could of gotten away with it as well.
Ugh. Some people.
Based on the initial reason for him being pulled over (not the speeding that occured from his trying to flee), I've gotten away with much worse with nothing but a verbal warning. If he would of stopped instantly and didn't act all tough-like while speaking to the officer, he probably could of gotten away with it as well.
Ugh. Some people.
HTA172 can be paired up with criminal charges. In this one they certainly would have been. However if all you're looking at is speeding without all the aggravating factors this one had, the HTA172 charge would be far more preferable over the Dangerous Driving that may have been laid prior to enacting HTA172.
Can they apply Dangerous driving and the HTA 172 together, or has the HTA 172 simply replaced any/all dangerous driving charges that could be applied?
LOL
If I step on the gas on my "cycle", I leave boot marks on my throttle tube.
And what Harley goes 250 km/h?
If I step on the gas on my "cycle", I leave boot marks on my throttle tube.
And what Harley goes 250 km/h?
I was asking the same
They can, but it's usually pointless because of the Kienapple Rule. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1974/1974canlii14/1974canlii14.pdf
If the sole act is excessive speeding, a speeder charged with both HTA172 and dangerous driving could only be convicted on one of the two charges.
The burden of proof to support an HTA172 conviction is much lower than that required to support a DD conviction because for DD the Crown has to prove "guilty mind", whereas for HTA172 the Crown only has to prove the act had occurred. The easiest conviction out of the two is the HTA172, and the penalties are sufficiently high that there is little need to pursue a Dangerous Driving charge.
That said, if there are distinct acts that support a Dangerous Driving charge in addition to the HTA172 charge, such as running a red light at high speed, then the Kienapple Rule no longer applies and the Crown could go for both convictions.
Last edited:
Interesting. So in terms of penalties what are the differences between the two, unless this has already been answered somewhere else on the forum.
|
|
|
|
|