Judge shocked at biker's bridge stunt - The Mormon's Bridge Video

**p.dath** · 14th February 2010, 15:33

Originally Posted by Kickaha

Or if he can prove a high level of competence on a trials bike

Alas that wont work. The test by the court is that of a "prudent" rider. Would a prudent rider have done this ... if you say that a "prudent" rider would not have edone this, then it is game over. Only course of action is to try and work on technical grounds.

**kevfromcoro** · 14th February 2010, 15:38

John boy was over here in Oz a few weeks ago..

Reckons when he was down in Sydney.. he was eyeing up the Harbour Bridge.

Glad he didnt.

The ozzie cops have no sence of humour.. when it comes to that sort of thing

**p.dath** · 14th February 2010, 15:40

Originally Posted by Kickaha

Or if he can prove a high level of competence on a trials bike

Originally Posted by FJRider

Anywhere public have access to, is subject to the road rules/law .... but one may argue that if ramps were needed at EACH end of the bridge ... public did NOT have FREE access to ...and therefore not a PUBLIC place.

I could see him end up facing other charges like disorderly conduct, public nuisance, or maybe even public endagerment. Dangerous Driving could be a good outcome ...

**red mermaid** · 14th February 2010, 15:48

The answer to all the questions is at the bottom of this quote...Carver could have done the stunt legally he just couldn't be arsed doing the correct planning and getting permissions cause he runs a half arsed outfit that doesn't have the money, and probably expertise, to do this.

Originally Posted by carver

I dont think so, it takes courage to do it...
the bike did not go over the edge....

the law has very little to do with right and wrong

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Red tape $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

**R6_kid:Me** · 14th February 2010, 15:50

Sanctioned dangerous driving?

http://www.3news.co.nz/Stuntman-pull...6/Default.aspx

**STJim** · 14th February 2010, 16:00

I am Carver's legal counsel. When this matter is resloved for better or for worse a report will be published on this forum dealing with both the legal position and the end result. Until then unfortunately I have to remain silent.
In the meatime I have handed out a couple of lots of red rep for comments that I consider to be rather ignorant.

**marty** · 14th February 2010, 16:15

Ooh that red rep will get 'em Jim.

**marty** · 14th February 2010, 16:16

Originally Posted by p.dath

Alas that wont work. The test by the court is that of a "prudent" rider. Would a prudent rider have done this ... if you say that a "prudent" rider would not have edone this, then it is game over. Only course of action is to try and work on technical grounds.

Link to case law re: 'prudent rider' please.

And the most likely course of action (IMHO) would be to prove that it was NOT dangerous to any person, and maybe get it reduced to Careless, or even better - thrown out - but I'm sure Mr Galt has already thought of that.

**Ixion** · 14th February 2010, 16:27

I *am* the prudent rider. I'd have done it! But only if the bridge was blocked. Then , it's just lane splitting, right. And that's legal.

**EJK** · 14th February 2010, 16:29

I wanna see the video again.

**The Everlasting** · 14th February 2010, 16:32

Originally Posted by EJK

I wanna see the video again.

Yeah,is it on youtube?

**EJK** · 14th February 2010, 16:33

Can't find it aye. Where is it?

**Maha** · 14th February 2010, 16:38

Originally Posted by STJim

I am Carver's legal counsel. When this matter is resloved for better or for worse a report will be published on this forum dealing with both the legal position and the end result. Until then unfortunately I have to remain silent.
In the meatime I have handed out a couple of lots of red rep for comments that I consider to be rather ignorant.

You sound more like his Marriage Celebrant than his Legal Counsel.