[Commuter Boy]

If you hate noisy bikes, and don't want to be harassed by the police using their reasonable judgement in order to keep the peace, why for the love of god did you put an aftermarket pipe on your Harley? Did you think the rules regarding noise and emissions didn't apply to you?

The worst part about this, is now there's a binding precedent allowing every LEO in BC to pull all of us over, issue a self assessed noise ticket, and there's no defense to it anymore. Good way to pick your battles.

Were you a self represented litigant, or do you have a lawyer to blame for the way this was handled?

 

[Commuter Boy]

What else could go wrong for him?

Well, he does own a Ducati for starters. The possibilities there are endless :roflmao

 

[Commuter Boy]

Let me see if I understand this... you think that it's ok to issue penalty points (meant to allow the OSMV to prevent risky drivers from driving) for the act of installing aftermarket pipes? Is that what you are saying?

Driving is a privilege, not a right. If your're driving around like a douchebag, making excess noise, stunting on the road, speeding, acting recklessly, or not paying attention, you'll garner points. Which offences earn you points, and how many, are set by public poicy. If you gather enough, you'll come to the attention of OSMV for "Driver Improvement", by which they mean you'll have to demonstrate to them you won't act like such a twat in the future.

People flipping hate loud pipes. They're completely unnecessary, and annoy the crap out of people, so yes, I fully support points for going out of your way to modify your bike in that way, as you still don't seem to think there's anything wrong with doing so. It might be the only way to get someone like you to smarten up.

As to LEO discretion to enforce, that's the Canadian way if you haven't figured it out yet. Lots of our laws have a very subjective component to their enforcement, and have for generations. You are certainly entitled to go and protest the officer's judgment, but the vast majority of LEO's in my experience are careful to back up their roadside judgements with something more solid than a whim, such as training courses for speed estimation, and in this case a decibel meter.

 

[Commuter Boy]

Then legal standards for Daytime Running Lights.

You missed the boat on that one, motorcycles have been required to have daytime running lights since 1975, and cars from the late '80's.

 

[Commuter Boy]

He ADMITS he had loud pipes. What is it about you guys who don't get that? The lawsuit was about ARBITRARY noise measurement, not loud pipes.

Oh, we get it, some of us just think he's exercised incredibly poor judgement deciding to fight something on moral grounds when he's guilty of the offense to begin with.

"Sure, I'm guilty, but I don't like the way you found out" isn't a great legal defense in the Canadian justice system.

Now, if he had STOCK pipes, and got arbitrarily pulled over and ticketed, then he'd have a case. But he didn't.

Still haven't had an answer as to if he was a self-represented litigant or not.....

 

[Commuter Boy]

Well said Adele. One has to laugh at all the lone rangers, indignant when they get a ticket they don't deserve, who are dumbfounded when they roll up in court for a one off fight, like lambs off to a slaughter, when they get steamrolled as the cops and judiciary collude to put them out of business. It's only happened in the last few years because the only thing that seems to get these apathetic clowns motivated is a hockey game. The average person has the attention span of a gnat and is ignorant about the stuff Victoria has done, and is both considering and planning for the future.

Quoted for posterity. I'll second the Dale Carnegie recommendation for you, how do you think you're going to garner support from strangers when you refer to them as "apathetic clowns" and "ignorant"?

I really like the part about the cops and judges colluding, you're into first class conspiracy theories right there. But hey, it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you, is it?

 

[Commuter Boy]

http://bcjustice.com/index.php?opti...ue&catid=587:traffic-appeals-2012&Itemid=1583

"Judicial Justice Lim describes Mr. Tootill’s defence that the noise from the Burrard Bridge amplified the sound of his motorcycle. "

This just gets better and better.......

 

[Commuter Boy]

Here is the explanation from the VPD Insp responsible for Traffic:

Nothing in there is binding on the officer. It's recommendations on how to do things to get charges that stick easier, so as not to waste the Court's time when they get challenged. Constable Bercic seems to know already how to get his charges documented well enough to hold up to a JP, or higher authority.

What you're missing here is that Crown counsel does a review of the case, and always had the option of dropping things at any point in time. If they think the case is absolute bullshit, they'll cave and let it go. Based on my family LEO's experience they do NOT want to waste their limited resources on bad cops who don't do their jobs properly.

Crown must have felt the officer had put together a solid enough case, not only to push the first charge, but subsequent bumping up to higher courts.

I run into this situation a few times a year where I have to decide whether or not my case is strong enough to go to Court and set a binding precedent for my peers and I, or if I'm going to spend a bunch of time and effort and come out with a decision that will hobble the whole profession going forwards. More often than not I'll let the case slide when I'm not absolutely certain (or as certain as you can get going in front of a judge) that I'm going to win. If it's a matter involving the Crown I'll have a sit down with Crown counsel beforehand and we'll size up the case and see who blinks first. More than a few times I've had CC give someone at CRA or other government department a right dressing down for picking a stupid fight with me. I doubt they're any different in traffic court matters.

Crown looked at the case, sized you up, and realized that they could blow you out of the water. Self represented litigant, officer's notes (probably extremely detailed since you say you were acting like a roadside lawyer at the traffic stop), a hard to defend fact pattern, and a case that could set a positive precedent giving enhanced powers to LEO's in BC. You got set up alright, but not just the way you think you did.

As I've said before, going off half cocked on this matter did us all a great disservice. We're all stuck with the consequences of your poor decision.

 

[Commuter Boy]

Oh Bill those questions have been asked and answered, you just don't like the answers.

The answers are usually "we're only responsible to discuss those things with our members".

If BCCOM was truly open you'd have those things up on your website somewhere like most professional advocacy groups do.

You could, of course, choose to answer them here or tell us where the information is available. But you never seem to want to do that......