Metastable
Well-known member
Can you just put up a no trespassing sign, to take care of that?
|
|
|
Popping wheelies at walmart after business hours.
- Thread starter 50 over
- Start date
To a limited extent. If it isn't enforced, then liability can be attached.
... and if it's enforced, you have no place to stunt anyway.
Would you practise stunting with a bunch of other people you had never seen before? At least in a privately organized lot, you can try to restrict access by not telling people where it is (like JohnnyP's spot). A public location where people are likely to ride beyond their skill would be a bloodbath.
Metastable
Well-known member
We know the state is more litigious than Canada and what they do on their BLM lands (land no one wants) is they put up no trespassing signs, so they (government) can't get sued. Yet they are meant as dirtbike locations with no supervision.
A big empty parking lot.... I don't think it would be a blood bath. It works fine in other places. As an average citizen, would you rather some unknown person pull a wheelie on the road, or would you rather they all be confined to one spot. I think it makes sense.
A big empty parking lot.... I don't think it would be a blood bath. It works fine in other places. As an average citizen, would you rather some unknown person pull a wheelie on the road, or would you rather they all be confined to one spot. I think it makes sense.
Let me tell you a little story.
Many years ago, before a certain subdivision was built in Brampton, the land was owned by a gravel company. Kids used to tear down the fence around the property, go right past the "no trespassing" signs, and ride their dirtbikes in the quarry. It went on for years.
Then, one day, a kid was riding there, did something stupid, and became a paraplegic. His parents sued. They won a settlement, of several hundred thousand dollars, because the owners of the land didn't do enough to stop people from abusing their property.
That might have been the end of it, if the kid's parents hadn't gotten greedy. They went back to the well, figuring that they REALLY deserved $2M for their kid's trouble. That's when they got nothing. The point is that it was after much was spent on defence, of the owners, and they came within a hair's breadth of losing.
Then there's the story of the track day, and the helmet that might or might not have been fastened, but that's for another day.
Metastable
Well-known member
Do you think it would make a difference if it was Government owned or not? I'm thinking if it was government land, then people would be less likely to sue and less likely to win... dunno - just saying.
IIRC They got hammered with legal costs and needed a fund raiser to keep their house.
The point is "What's in it for the city?" Where do they get anything but grief out f it? Show me where there is any monetary benefit to the city or taxpayer.
Once a car or bike is used for anything other than road transportation it becomes nearly impossible for the govies to make judgement calls. I'm surprised they run skateboard parks.
Try telling the electorate that their house taxes are going up 10% to cover liability insurance for a stunt zone. How many people pay for track days to get the urge out of their systems compared to the number that run the back roads?
Metastable
Well-known member
Why would the government need liability insurance? If they do have such a thing, doesn't it cover roads and everything else?
An insurance policy covers specific items and activities. When you mention high risk or even appearance of high risk the premium is about the same as the payout. I'm sure the underwriters enjoy the stunt crash videos.
Correct, as I recall, all because they thought that they say a payday. That was more than 30 years ago though. Now it's a different time, with different standards, and they'd likely get their $2M.
There's absolutely nothing in it, for any group that could do this sort of thing, except downside.
IIRC, a closed and controlled course, at the very least, is necessary for stunting. It may also require an approved course by an acredited inspection/engineering firm with details of stunts to be performed, insurance, baracades, security, remote shut-off devices, fire department, paramedics and a permit from the city.
HTA offences have to be on a highway.
Definition of highway under the HTA in short is shoulder to shoulder (including the sidewalk) and property line to property line in case of like downtown.
Stunting and careless are HTA offences. Private parking lots don't fall under the definition.
Criminal Code offences are anywhere.
Dangerous driving is criminal. they can get ya there.
Definition of highway under the HTA in short is shoulder to shoulder (including the sidewalk) and property line to property line in case of like downtown.
Stunting and careless are HTA offences. Private parking lots don't fall under the definition.
Criminal Code offences are anywhere.
Dangerous driving is criminal. they can get ya there.
Not necessarily. Read the various sections of the HTA. Some explicitly refer to "operate on a highway" or "when operating on a highway". Those offences apply only to vehicles operating on a highway. Note that the definition of highway is very broad, and "
includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; (“voie publique”)"
Sections of the HTA that do not explicitly refer to being on a highway could apply to vehicles and driving NOT on a highway. I know of one person who was convicted under the HTA for simply having another car's license plates on his car while it was sitting in his driveway even though he wasn't caught while operating that car on the highway.
+1
Guy did a stoppie in the timmies parking lot. Got charged with Dangerous Driving. I said to the cop "I thought you couldn't get a ticket if you were in a parking lot?" he said "That's a criminal code charge."
-Jamie M.
I agree that even on private property one shouldn't be allowed to endanger people or property with motor vehicles (Or sword fightiing displays etc etc.) hence a dangerous charge.
Would the charge be appropriate if the biker was in a huge, totally vacant parking lot where he was the only endangered being?
ski_powder
New member
If a cop is having a bad day and finds you stunting behind some warehouse in the middle of nowhere, he could make your life hell even if the owner of that property gave you permission to be there? I wasn't aware of the dangerous driving charge before reading this thread so I'm kind of worried now.
Yes. A property owner cannot give you permission to commit a criminal act. Dangerous driving is a Criminal Code offence.
So, on a roadracing course, where we routinely do things that would have a police officer throwing us in jail if those things were done on public roads, how is that not "dangerous driving"?
I am failing to see the difference between going very fast and dragging knees and occasionally lifting up a front wheel on a roadracing course while participating in a sanctioned roadracing event - or a track day, which is not a sanctioned event!, and going rather slowly with one wheel in the air a lot of the time on a stunt bike in a hypothetical location where such activity is hypothetically sanctioned (or not).
Explain.
Metastable
Well-known member
Brian I agree. I posed the same question on another thread and honestly the answers never really made complete sense to me either. They were saying that well at a track you expect to be going fast, there are conditions made to enhance safety etc.... at the end of the day it is still dangerous driving.
Here is my opinion: To me common sense says-> if one were in a parking lot with people around that were innocent bystanders not involved in any way with what was going on, and someone did something that could potentially cause great deal of harm, THEN I CAN UNDERSTAND a criminal code charge.
Someone is in an empty parking lot.... WHO CARES?!!! Someone does a wheelie behind a warehouse with people who came there to watch wheelies.... WHO CARES?!
Give peeps a spot to legally stunt and that might very well cut down on all this nonsense. If one can sue the city for the stunt spot, I'm sure they could sue the city for something on the roadway as well. You might as well keep stunters away from Joe Public.
Sorry -> I know my way of thinking won't ever change anything, but anyhoo.... those be my thoughts.
Here is my opinion: To me common sense says-> if one were in a parking lot with people around that were innocent bystanders not involved in any way with what was going on, and someone did something that could potentially cause great deal of harm, THEN I CAN UNDERSTAND a criminal code charge.
Someone is in an empty parking lot.... WHO CARES?!!! Someone does a wheelie behind a warehouse with people who came there to watch wheelies.... WHO CARES?!
Give peeps a spot to legally stunt and that might very well cut down on all this nonsense. If one can sue the city for the stunt spot, I'm sure they could sue the city for something on the roadway as well. You might as well keep stunters away from Joe Public.
Sorry -> I know my way of thinking won't ever change anything, but anyhoo.... those be my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|