Few people enjoy listening to loud bikes (not even me oddly) so one of the big reasons that I fought an uphill battle in Supreme court was prejudice against the proverbial loud Harley. Notwithstanding that fact, hopefully nobody advocates the practice of arbitrary charges and the creation of objective evidence that's not relevant to the charge.
Some of you have rightly observed I embarassed myself fighting the charge. I didn't fight the charge to save money, I fought it because I was charged for something I did not do (noisy operation) and the charge carries penalty points that I believe (and so should you) should be reserved for risk related vehicle operation. I did not get charged for loud pipes, rather noisy operation... there's a difference. For the record, I don't care about the money. It cost me a hell of a lot more than the fine to fight the charge.
I called the media because I felt the subject of OSMV appointed adjudicators, which are about to replace our traffic courts for disputes, should be questioned, particularly in light of the fact that police officers are today more than ever in a position of power with low burden of proof for evidence in justifying charges under the motor vehicle act. This cop, who's received a Chief's commendation for evidence gathering, who knew better ... corroborated his flimsy subjective evidence with useless and misleading objective evidence that he created. It took an immense amount of work to expose him.
Silly me, I miscalculated and thought the media might be interested in rogue cops, especially if we are about to eliminate traffic courts and become even more reliant on police integrity.
However, unfortunately the reporter sent to cover the story was not a court reporter and initially required a review in how Supreme Court worked (five minutes before my court appearance). So a weak story emerged online two hours later that completely missed the point. Subsequently, one of the senior editors at The Province, who has a hate on for loud bikes, saw the story, made some assumptions and voila ... I became the poster boy for the two days of editorials and letters that ensued.
For those of you that think I should have been swift enough to control what the reporter scribbled or wrote.... sorry I am just not that good.
Adele at BCCOM is right, I don't do things to save my ass, I do them because they are the right thing to do. Correct it the first time properly, and nobody has to deal with it afterward. If everybody did just that, we would not have to deal with the terrible legislation that Victoria now heaps upon us ... which they know they can do because people take the easier route more often than not.
Thanks Adele, for standing up for riders, what's right, and for putting a good word in for me.
By the way, if you are naive enough to believe everything you read in the tabloid media or that interviewees have any control over what reporters write or editors produce, you need to go back to school.
For anyone interested, I've published a follow up to the Supreme Court dismissal here .
Some of you have rightly observed I embarassed myself fighting the charge. I didn't fight the charge to save money, I fought it because I was charged for something I did not do (noisy operation) and the charge carries penalty points that I believe (and so should you) should be reserved for risk related vehicle operation. I did not get charged for loud pipes, rather noisy operation... there's a difference. For the record, I don't care about the money. It cost me a hell of a lot more than the fine to fight the charge.
I called the media because I felt the subject of OSMV appointed adjudicators, which are about to replace our traffic courts for disputes, should be questioned, particularly in light of the fact that police officers are today more than ever in a position of power with low burden of proof for evidence in justifying charges under the motor vehicle act. This cop, who's received a Chief's commendation for evidence gathering, who knew better ... corroborated his flimsy subjective evidence with useless and misleading objective evidence that he created. It took an immense amount of work to expose him.
Silly me, I miscalculated and thought the media might be interested in rogue cops, especially if we are about to eliminate traffic courts and become even more reliant on police integrity.
However, unfortunately the reporter sent to cover the story was not a court reporter and initially required a review in how Supreme Court worked (five minutes before my court appearance). So a weak story emerged online two hours later that completely missed the point. Subsequently, one of the senior editors at The Province, who has a hate on for loud bikes, saw the story, made some assumptions and voila ... I became the poster boy for the two days of editorials and letters that ensued.
For those of you that think I should have been swift enough to control what the reporter scribbled or wrote.... sorry I am just not that good.
Adele at BCCOM is right, I don't do things to save my ass, I do them because they are the right thing to do. Correct it the first time properly, and nobody has to deal with it afterward. If everybody did just that, we would not have to deal with the terrible legislation that Victoria now heaps upon us ... which they know they can do because people take the easier route more often than not.
Thanks Adele, for standing up for riders, what's right, and for putting a good word in for me.
By the way, if you are naive enough to believe everything you read in the tabloid media or that interviewees have any control over what reporters write or editors produce, you need to go back to school.
For anyone interested, I've published a follow up to the Supreme Court dismissal here .
