Who doesn't hate noisy motorcycles? I know I do, especially when they are ridden strictly to get my audio attention.
The Province newspaper recently published a story and an editorial about my Supreme Court appearance for a conviction for unnecessary noise which I received in the fall of 2009 while riding my Harley Davidson V-Rod. By focusing on a cheap exploitation of widespread hatred of motorcyclists and noise, the editorial completely missed the point of my appeal, which is that I am not guilty as charged, believe I did not get a fair trial, and that cops should be held accountable when they provide misleading evidence. Further, demerit points have no place where the offence has nothing to do with risky driving.
But in the court of public opinion, that doesn't matter and the writer took advantage of widespread (and understandable) prejudice about motorcycles. If you see the rubbish that's being debated by the simpletons that are barking back and forth in the comments section under the original The Province article about my case, drawing specious conclusions about the size of my genitals, psychological shortfalls, motives for being an asshole etc.; you should be left with no doubt as to why it was so easy for this cop to pull off what he did to me, and what I know he did to other(s) as well. Shiny motorcycle = noise therefore harass and throw the book at him; and who cares whether he's guilty or not.
First off, I am not going to debate whether or not loud pipes save lives. Ironically, I happen to be one of those people that thinks that even ERTs should not be permitted to raise the racket they do with sirens (except under exceptional circumstances). However, if the perpetrators of ear splitting siren noise say it saves lives perhaps there is a safety argument. I'm not sure, but if you are one of those who back the ERTs when they say sirens are all about safety, then don't have a double standard and say that bikers who use it are full of it when they use it.
No question, noisy motorcyclists and drivers creating a din deserve tickets.
The Province claimed I installed pipes to make my motorcycle "as loud as possible". Actually, the pipes I purchased were some of the quietest aftermarket pipes (if you can call pipes made by the OEM "aftermarket") on the market. That's one of the reasons I chose them. Had I been cited for improper equipment and if they were illegal, I would have sucked it up and paid the fine. But I wasn't; so that is not, and never was the issue.
The issue is that VPD Cst. John Bercic made a vague subjective observation about my driving and arbitrarily pulled me over without cause. In fact, he could not (or would not) tell me why he'd apprehended me until he'd walked around my bike and had a close look at the make of the exhaust. He then created objective evidence himself by ordering me to rev up my bike to an engine speed he never heard prior to my apprehension, he used a non standard personal noise meter to measure it and further, he denied in court that there was VPD testing protocol which existed for the operation of noise meters. He submitted his useless evidence in court to corroborate his flimsy subjective observation in court which was simply "I heard a loud exhaust noise" and "it sounded twice as loud as a stock exhaust". That's it. Problem? I think so.
He wrote me up for MVA s. 7a.01 which is a subjective charge (with demerit points) that refers to noisy operation of a motor vehicle (basically behaving like the asshole that some on bikes can be) and not a charge which deals with noisy equipment. See the difference? The fact that ICBC and the OSMV have created offences in the Motor Vehicle Act which carry points (which should be there to assess at fault crash risk), but which have nothing to do with crash risk producing behaviour is an issue also. Police are constantly claiming they need more legislation (and power) so they can better protect us. Events like this unfortunately say to me they cannot be trusted with discretion.
When I tried to qualify the allegation in court by cross examining Bercic as to what the subjective evidence was that caused me to be pulled over, such as "...did I rev..?" (my engine), the JP (who had both a short attention span and a temper to go with it) shut me down. Judicial Justice Lim told me "those questions aren't relevent". However two trial days later (this little dispute took two years and four court appearances... five if I include Supreme Court... no wonder our justice system is broke), after I had shown Cst. Bercic's objective evidence to be useless (and in the process under normal circumstances shown the crown witness' credibility to be highly suspect), the JP threw most of it out and reverted back to the flimsy evidence that he refused to allow me to qualify. Problem? I think so....
Maybe to put this in a simple analogy so that people can understand: Cop pulls you over without reasonable cause and pulls out a breath tester that he ordered online and tells you to blow. Then he goes to court and submits that evidence to support your conviction for impaired driving. Problem? I think so.
Then he (Bercic) implied that not only was he doing everything to department standards, but that he has many years of experience and knowledge to back up his allegation. So the JP took his word for it. It took a subpoena for another professional VPD witness to prove he was bluffing (to put it politely). Problem? I think so.
Readers might be interested to know that Bercic has received a commendation from the Chief of the VPD for his techniques in gathering evidence "which have become departmental standards." Funny a cop whose techniques have become departmental standards, wouldn't know anything about a published noise testing procedure when asked in court about it. Problem? I'd say so.
The Province owes it to its readers (and themselves) to critique this stuff, which is calling into question whether there should be, or can be, any such thing as police discretion as we now debate appointed adjudicators by the OSMV to be used for traffic ticket disputes.
So I realize there is some validity to the expression "never let the facts get in the way of a good story" however it would benefit all of us if writers and editorialists would make it clear I am not one of those you see on bikes with straight pipes trying to make themselves known. Most importantly, they should let their readers know when unfair behaviour and / or deceit (particularly under oath) are perpetrated by people in uniform.
You can read The Province Blog: Loud pipes are just a blight on others
