REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum


Welcome to the REVscene Automotive Forum forums.

Registration is Free!You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   REVscene Automotive Forum > Automotive Chat > Police Forum

Police Forum Police Head Mod: Skidmark
Questions & info about the Motor Vehicle Act. Mature discussion only.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-09-2012, 10:27 PM   #1
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,144 Times in 3,366 Posts
Buddy's question: section 178?

Friend got nailed the other day, fail to stop for a yellow, and in being a bit of a twit, the cop also gave him a box 2. According to my friend, the conversation was along the lines of:
"You didn't stop for the yellow"
"I didn't feel I could safely stop in time." (It was raining, his van was loaded with tools and thus quite heavy)
"So you're saying your van isn't safe to be on the road? I could fix that for you right now and have it towed..."

Anyway... he got home and looked up the MVA... from what he could find, he said, section 178 (which the ticket was written under) said it had been repealed, and he couldn't find anything else that claimed to replace it. (Sort of along the lines of this thread: http://www.revscene.net/forums/58031...aded-area.html)

So now he's wondering... does he have a valid dispute for a ticket that's written under a now-non-existent section of the Act? And if he DOES succeed in that, can the VI be dismissed as "fruits of the poison vine"?
Advertisement
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 10:47 PM   #2
Captain Happy Bubble is my Homeboy
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 319
Thanked 77 Times in 29 Posts
If a cop gives a vi and the box is checked, you have to do it. Nothing you can do.
Posted via RS Mobile
Impreza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 06:37 AM   #3
Rs has made me the man i am today!
 
ninjatune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: LMD
Posts: 3,145
Thanked 228 Times in 71 Posts
His excuse is BS anyways... would not hold up in court and is a poor excuse.
ninjatune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 08:41 AM   #4
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
Maybe the writing is a little less than clear? Section 128 deals with failing to stop for yellow lights. What will have to be proved is that, at the speed limit, he would have been able to stop safely before he entered the intersection on a yellow light. The only defence is that he could not safely stop before the crosswalk due to his actual position when the yellow came on. Speeding, a heavily loaded vehicle etc should have been considerations for him to alter his driving style if he knows he cannot stop soon enough. His vehicle has to be able to stop in a minimum of 7.62 m at 32 kph to have legal brakes. If he chose to load his truck in such a way that he knows he cannot stop in time, that is not an excuse for running the yellow.

Yellow light
128 (1) When a yellow light alone is exhibited at an intersection by a traffic control signal, following the exhibition of a green light,

(a) the driver of a vehicle approaching the intersection and facing the yellow light must cause it to stop before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no marked crosswalk, before entering the intersection, unless the stop cannot be made in safety"


As far as the VI goes, we have no idea what sort of condition the vehicle was in at the time. Telling a Cop that your brakes don't work in order to escape a yellow light ticket, may have seemed like a good idea at the time? I can see how the Cop decided to get him to have the vehicle checked out to see just how bad it really was.
zulutango is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 08:52 AM   #5
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,144 Times in 3,366 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by zulutango View Post
Maybe the writing is a little less than clear? Section 128 deals with failing to stop for yellow lights.
I mentioned that, but he said the cop's 2s and 7s were distinctly different and this was definitely 178.

Quote:
His vehicle has to be able to stop in a minimum of 7.62 m at 32 kph to have legal brakes.
Measured on dry pavement?

Quote:
As far as the VI goes, we have no idea what sort of condition the vehicle was in at the time. Telling a Cop that your brakes don't work in order to escape a yellow light ticket, may have seemed like a good idea at the time? I can see how the Cop decided to get him to have the vehicle checked out to see just how bad it really was.
He never said anything about the brakes, he only said that in his judgement, he didn't feel he could have safely stopped in time.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 02:15 PM   #6
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
I mentioned that, but he said the cop's 2s and 7s were distinctly different and this was definitely 178.


Measured on dry pavement?


He never said anything about the brakes, he only said that in his judgement, he didn't feel he could have safely stopped in time.
"his van was loaded with tools and thus quite heavy" This is what caught my eye in the OP.

Re the stopping distance, on dry pavement I believe.

"5.02 (1) Every motor vehicle and every combination of vehicles shall be equipped with service brakes which, when applied, will not affect the direction of travel of the motor vehicle or combination of vehicles, and under all conditions of loading will be adequate, when the motor vehicle or combination of vehicles is travelling at a speed of 30 km/h on a substantially level, dry, smooth, hard surfaced road free of loose material where the grade does not exceed 1%, to s


If it really is a 7 and not a 2 then the VT is not valid unless the Cop moves to change the section at court time before the trial begins....or he could realize the mistake and serve a new one.
zulutango is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net