'Boy Racer' laws and bikers?

[TonyB]

Anyone care to offer an opinion of the legal ramifications of the Boy Racer laws as they apply to bikers?
Some of you will know that a Chch boy racer is awaiting sentencing after racing a woman who went on to have a crash with another vehicle causing death and injury. He himself didn’t have an accident, but he did ‘flee the scene’. Not sure if this has any bearing on his current predicament ie: if he had stayed and offered assistance would he be in as much trouble? Here at work the feeling is that while he is in more hot water for fleeing the scene, he would still be looking at a jail term because he was involved in the race. Does anyone agree with this?

If that really is the case, it could prove awkward for us bikers. How many times have you been out on a ride and come up behind a car that then speeds up and tries to leave you behind? It’s happened to me two weekends in a row. What if the car crashed? If there were witnesses that said you were close behind the car and travelling at speed could you potentially be looking at a jail term? Then there’s rides like the ‘Akaroa GP’. If you were riding hard with some buddies and one of them crashed resulting in injury or death, could you also be in for a jail term? Imagine that, not only do you have to cope with the loss of a friend, you also are seen as causing his death in the eyes of the law. Great.

So what is the general consensus?

[bugjuice]

I think the term 'boy racer' is a generalisation, cos it's often them who's targeted as they have the biggest weapon, and often, the smallest brain (no offense).
In the same breath, if a biker, or anyone else not branded as a 'boy-racer' was to commit the same offense, I don't think there would be any difference in punishment or proceedure. What applies to one, will apply to all, regardless of what people call it.

If you do the crime, be prepared for the time. end of story imho

[MSTRS:Me]

Dunno. Sounds ominous tho. Perhaps we need to get little stickers that read 'I'm not racing - this is normal speed for me'.

[bugjuice]

Dunno. Sounds ominous tho. Perhaps we need to get little stickers that read 'I'm not racing - this is normal speed for me'.

lmao.. I'll make some up now..

[**R1**]

lmao.. I'll make some up now..

I'll take one

So let me get this straight.....if im doing and Akoroa GP and some twat that cant ride crashes behind me after i have passed him, its my fault?? so not only do i have to keep myself upright(not doing so well at this at the mo) but i have to make sure every other biker i ride with is in controll as well?? this is fucken CRAZY!! im not going to be held responsible for ever other wanker on the road....or have i got the wrong end of the stick?

[inlinefour]

I reckon it applies to all motor vehicle users alike. So think again if you are going to try doing that stupid behaviour.

[TonyB]

....or have i got the wrong end of the stick?

Dunno mate, that's what I'm trying to find out. The guys here at work seem to think thats exactly how it works ie: if you are 'racing' someone and they crash you are in deep shit.

[spudchucka]

[36A.Contravention of section 22A—

(1)A person commits an offence if the person—

(a)operates a motor vehicle in a race, or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration, on a road in contravention of section 22A(1); or

(b)without reasonable excuse, intentionally pours onto, places on, or allows to spill onto a road

(i)any petrol, oil, or diesel fuel; or

(ii)any other substance likely to cause a vehicle to undergo loss of traction; or

(c)without reasonable excuse, operates a motor vehicle on a road in a manner that causes the vehicle to undergo sustained loss of traction in contravention of section 22A(3).

(2)A person commits an indictable offence if the person commits an offence against subsection (1)(a) or (c), and by that act or omission causes an injury to or the death of another person.

(3)A person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(a) or (c) that is an indictable offence is liable to the penalties set out in section 36(2), and section 36(2) and (3) apply as if the offence were an offence against section 36(1)(a) (such as operating a motor vehicle recklessly on a road, and by that act or omission causing an injury to or the death of another person).

(4)A person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(a) or (c) that is not an indictable offence is liable to the penalties set out in section 35(2), and section 35(2) and (3) apply as if the offence were an offence against section 35(1)(a) (operating a motor vehicle recklessly on a road).

(5)A person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(b) is liable to a fine not exceeding $3,000.]

36.Contravention of section 7 or section 22 involving injury or death—

(1)A person commits an indictable offence if the person—

(a)Commits an offence against paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of section 35(1) and by that act or omission causes an injury to or the death of another person; or

(b)Without reasonable excuse, contravenes section 22 by failing to stop and ascertain whether any person has been injured, and render assistance, after an accident where a person has been injured or killed.

(2)If a person is convicted of an offence against subsection (1),—

(a)The maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine not exceeding $20,000; and

(b)The court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 1 year or more.

(3)The imposition of a mandatory disqualification under this section is subject to section 81.

Spells it out pretty clear.

[TonyB]

Cheers Spudchuka. Well, it looks like the next time I catch up to a car that then decides to take me on, the safest option is to stop for a while. Really handy if you're just minding your own business and have somewhere to be.

[**R1**]

Spells it out pretty clear.

Not so clear to me(but i aint too bright)

so for example
You are riding around the hills(speeding), you pass a guy on another bike, he thinks you are racing and tries to catch back up to you and crashes and dies........if you stop to help him you get a $3000 fine?

if i dont stop but get caught later you go to jail and could be fined $20,000?

or you dont stop dont get caught and no1 is any the wiser.

[onearmedbandit]

Aaron, I know what you did last summer...

[**R1**]

Aaron, I know what you did last summer...

and we all know what i did last Friday

ps: sssssshhhhhhhh its ment 2b a secret

[Waylander]

Maybe I should try to find the guy that ran me off the road and apply this to him? Nah, can't be botherd.

[madboy]

I can't fault the legal argument - the law is pretty clear on it.

But all it says to me is don't run a numberplate, and get the f*** outta dodge the moment something happens.

[Ixion]

Not so clear to me(but i aint too bright)

so for example
You are riding around the hills(speeding), you pass a guy on another bike, he thinks you are racing and tries to catch back up to you and crashes and dies........if you stop to help him you get a $3000 fine?

if i dont stop but get caught later you go to jail and could be fined $20,000?

or you dont stop dont get caught and no1 is any the wiser.

Not so clear to me(but i aint too bright)

so for example
You are riding around the hills(speeding), you pass a guy on another bike, he thinks you are racing and tries to catch back up to you and crashes and dies........if you stop to help him you get a $3000 fine?

if i dont stop but get caught later you go to jail and could be fined $20,000?

or you dont stop dont get caught and no1 is any the wiser.

That's not how I'd read it.

I think the $3000 fine bit only applies to putting diesel etc on the road.

The bad boy bits are "operates a .. vehicle in a race.. or .. unnecessary exhibition of speed.." and "..Operates a vehicle .. sustained loss of traction"

So, my take is (ignoring the pouring diesel on the road, cos no biker would be thatstupid):

1. The crown has to show that you were operating a vehicle in a race. Which is a question of fact in each case. I think that a judge or jury would be able to distinguish between a group of people out together for a ride, and a race (Simple test - is anyone interested in who gets there first ?). And if someone tries to "take you on", and you continue at the same speed and manner as you were before, it can hardly be a race. OTOH if someone passes you and you then try to catch him/ get past him, (going faster, harder than you were before), then it could be said that you were racing even though he wasn't. So in the example you give, you pass a guy, he tries to catch you, crashes etc. The Crown could have to show that you were trying to stop him catching you , eg riding faster or harder than you were before; or that there was some preunderstanding that implied competition. (eg, they had a witness who heard you say to the other guy, beforehand " I bet you could never catch me on the xxx road" )

2. The "exhibition of speed or acceleration" is a bit trickier. But I would think that a key word is "exhibition" - the Crown would need to show that you were "showing off" . It doesn't just say "anyone who accelerates excessively" Once again, a question of fact in each case. Which would imply that you can acelerate as hard as you like, so long as it does not risk loss of control, and so long as there is no "audience". Though I've heard of HP applying this bit to cover any "I don't like the way you were riding, but I can't pin anything specific on you" cases

3. If you *are* racing or dragging ("exhibition of speed etc" and someone is injured or killed then you *must* stop and render assistance (which I assume any sane person would do anyway) . Unless there is reasonable excuse - I'd assume that would be if you yourself were injured, or if there were already lots of people assisting.(Bearing in mind that you could still presumably be done for leaving the scene of an accident) And you get done on an indictable charge (bad, very bad) of dangerous driving causing death or some such.

4. If you *are* racing or dragging, and get caught, but nobody crashes, then you get done as if for reckless driving ("section 35(2), and section 35(2) and (3) apply as if the offence were an offence against section 35(1)(a) (operating a motor vehicle recklessly on a road).")

Simple solution seems to be not to race on the road. If you carry on at your own pace, and let others carry on at theirs, there is no issue.

The sustained loss of traction bit could presumably include wheelies and stoppies (locking a wheel under braking or lifting it off the deck is also loss of traction), but the Police already have a remedy for those, since they are considered dangerous driving. And it does have to be "sustained"

In all the above IANAL ("I Am Not A Lawyer"). Given that these are quite serious charges I would imagine that anyone charged with them would be getting a lawyer.

Overall I think it's a bad law, brought in on an emotive wave of public objection to a valid problem.