Provincial Driving Offences (13:VI) - Revision history

Nate Russell: /* 1. Speeding */

2026-10-06T18:17:24Z

1. Speeding

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:17, 6 October 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:
	Per section 146.1 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'', some vehicles, including but not limited to heavy commercial vehicles, the driver’s obedience of speed limits is insufficient, and the vehicle must be equipped with a speed limiter. A speed limiter means a system that prevents a motor vehicle from accelerating to or maintaining a certain speed. Section 146.2 allows police officers to stop and inspect vehicles without warrant in order to ensure speed limiters are installed.		Per section 146.1 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'', some vehicles, including but not limited to heavy commercial vehicles, the driver’s obedience of speed limits is insufficient, and the vehicle must be equipped with a speed limiter. A speed limiter means a system that prevents a motor vehicle from accelerating to or maintaining a certain speed. Section 146.2 allows police officers to stop and inspect vehicles without warrant in order to ensure speed limiters are installed.

	In ''R. v. Thachuk'', 2024 BCSC 2393, the Court clarified that a ticketing officer’s visual estimates of speed are not required to support a laser speed reading. It also clarified that a discrepancy or broad margin of error in the visual estimate of speed does not override the validity of an otherwise accurate laser reading. Rather, the BCSC determined that a visual estimate primarily serves as a triggering mechanism for an officer to use their laser device. While a visual estimate can corroborate a laser reading, it is not necessary for conviction.		In ''[https://canlii.ca/t/k92dt R. v. Thachuk]'', 2024 BCSC 2393, the Court clarified that a ticketing officer’s visual estimates of speed are not required to support a laser speed reading. It also clarified that a discrepancy or broad margin of error in the visual estimate of speed does not override the validity of an otherwise accurate laser reading. Rather, the BCSC determined that a visual estimate primarily serves as a triggering mechanism for an officer to use their laser device. While a visual estimate can corroborate a laser reading, it is not necessary for conviction.


	=== 2. Careless Driving ===		=== 2. Careless Driving ===

Nate Russell: 2026 update

2026-10-06T18:15:42Z

2026 update

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:15, 6 October 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= 30 July ~~2025~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= 30 July 2026}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}

Line 96:		Line 96:
	The number of penalty points will be taken into account under ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 93 when the Superintendent suspends a license. '''The Superintendent may suspend the license of a class 5 driver who accumulates 15 or more points in any two year period.''' For a class 7 driver, or novice driver, the Superintendent may suspend the licence for receiving single a 3 point Violation Ticket. [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/driving-and-transportation/driving/roadsafetybc/high-risk/street-racing/driver-improvement-policies-guidelines.pdf More information can be obtained from the Driver Improvement Program Policies and Guidelines].		The number of penalty points will be taken into account under ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 93 when the Superintendent suspends a license. '''The Superintendent may suspend the license of a class 5 driver who accumulates 15 or more points in any two year period.''' For a class 7 driver, or novice driver, the Superintendent may suspend the licence for receiving single a 3 point Violation Ticket. [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/driving-and-transportation/driving/roadsafetybc/high-risk/street-racing/driver-improvement-policies-guidelines.pdf More information can be obtained from the Driver Improvement Program Policies and Guidelines].

	As of December 2017, class 5 driver who incurs two high-risk offences (Use of Electronic Device; Excessive Speed; and/or Drive Without Due Care or Attention) in a one year period risks losing their driver’s licence for up to 5 months.		As of December 2017, class 5 driver who incurs two high-risk offences (Use of Electronic Device; Email/Text While Driving; Excessive Speed; and/or Drive Without Due Care or Attention) in a one year period risks losing their driver’s licence for up to 5 months.

	=== 1. ICBC Effects of Penalty Points ===		=== 1. ICBC Effects of Penalty Points ===

LSLAP at 19:25, 13 October 2025

2025-10-13T19:25:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:25, 13 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~August 14, 2024~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= 30 July 2025}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}

LSLAP: /* 4. Use of Electronic Devices */

2025-09-28T23:53:07Z

4. Use of Electronic Devices

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:53, 28 September 2025
Line 78:		Line 78:
	electronic device as use of an electronic device.		electronic device as use of an electronic device.

	In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2018/2018bcpc101/2018bcpc101.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20bainbridge&autocompletePos=3 ''R v Bainbridge'' 2018, BCPC 101] the accused was found guilty of the offence for simply holding the device in his hand while driving. The court held that any number of functions of the accused’s phone '''could''' have been used in the position in which he held his phone. . In R. v. Virda, 2024 BCSC 2410, the accused was found guilty of the offence for tapping his cellphone twice while he was stopped at a light to accept an Uber Eats delivery offer. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc745/2017bcsc745.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20jahani&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Jahani'', 2017 BCSC 745], the accused was found guilty of the offence for plugging his phone into the cord to charge the phone.		In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2018/2018bcpc101/2018bcpc101.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20bainbridge&autocompletePos=3 R v Bainbridge]'', 2018 BCPC 101 the accused was found guilty of the offence for simply holding the device in his hand while driving. The court held that any number of functions of the accused’s phone '''could''' have been used in the position in which he held his phone. . In R. v. Virda, 2024 BCSC 2410, the accused was found guilty of the offence for tapping his cellphone twice while he was stopped at a light to accept an Uber Eats delivery offer. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc745/2017bcsc745.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20jahani&autocompletePos=1 R v Jahani]'', 2017 BCSC 745, the accused was found guilty of the offence for plugging his phone into the cord to charge the phone.

	In R . v. Antonio, 2024 BCSC 2300, the accused, a Class 7 licence holder, was charged with the offence because the ticketing officer observed that the accused’s cellphone was in a bag on the passenger seat and attached by a USB cable to his car. However, he was acquitted because simply driving with his cellphone plugged into his car did not constitute “use” as defined in s.214.2(1). Citing R. v. Sangret, 2019 BCSC 2131 at paras 14-18, having an electronic device mounted to or installed on the dashboard, without any holding, touching or other use of it, did not constitute “use” as defined in the Act.		In ''R . v. Antonio'', 2024 BCSC 2300, the accused, a Class 7 licence holder, was charged with the offence because the ticketing officer observed that the accused’s cellphone was in a bag on the passenger seat and attached by a USB cable to his car. However, he was acquitted because simply driving with his cellphone plugged into his car did not constitute “use” as defined in s.214.2(1). Citing ''R. v. Sangret'', 2019 BCSC 2131 at paras 14-18, having an electronic device mounted to or installed on the dashboard, without any holding, touching or other use of it, did not constitute “use” as defined in the Act.

	In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2019/2019bcsc360/2019bcsc360.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20partridge%202019%20BCS&autocompletePos=1 ''R v. Partridge'', 2019 BCSC 360], the accused was observed by a police officer looking downwards whilst driving and when stopped, a cell phone was found wedged between the folds of the passenger seat such that the screen was facing the driver. Accused was convicted. However, the accused was acquitted on appeal because the mere presence of a cell phone within sight of a driver is not enough to secure a conviction, leaving aside a situation where, for example, the screen is illuminated and so the driver may then be utilizing the cell phone in some fashion.		In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2019/2019bcsc360/2019bcsc360.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20partridge%202019%20BCS&autocompletePos=1 R v. Partridge]'', 2019 BCSC 360, the accused was observed by a police officer looking downwards whilst driving and when stopped, a cell phone was found wedged between the folds of the passenger seat such that the screen was facing the driver. Accused was convicted. However, the accused was acquitted on appeal because the mere presence of a cell phone within sight of a driver is not enough to secure a conviction, leaving aside a situation where, for example, the screen is illuminated and so the driver may then be utilizing the cell phone in some fashion.

	In R. v. Mirza, 2023 BCSC 881, the accused was charged with the offence after the ticketing officer observed that his cellphone lying flat on his thigh, the screen upwards and unlit, while stopped at a traffic light. The accused argued that he was not “using” his cellphone, which was leaning on his leg. He contended that both his hands were on his steering wheel, he was not looking down at his device, and he was not “using” any of the functions of his device. The BCSC upheld the finding that the accused had violated s.214.2(1) because “if [the cellphone] is being held on the lap or on the thigh, it is still holding within the meaning of the statute” [para 19-20].		In ''R. v. Mirza'', 2023 BCSC 881, the accused was charged with the offence after the ticketing officer observed that his cellphone lying flat on his thigh, the screen upwards and unlit, while stopped at a traffic light. The accused argued that he was not “using” his cellphone, which was leaning on his leg. He contended that both his hands were on his steering wheel, he was not looking down at his device, and he was not “using” any of the functions of his device. The BCSC upheld the finding that the accused had violated s.214.2(1) because “if [the cellphone] is being held on the lap or on the thigh, it is still holding within the meaning of the statute” [para 19-20].

	In [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/00/2021BCSC0013.htm ''R v. Bleau'', 2021 BCSC 13], the accused received a ticket while listening to a podcast through his vehicle’s sound system. Bleau’s phone was connected by Bluetooth and loosely placed in the cup holder of the centre compartment. The phone was not securely affixed to the vehicle, but Bleau did not touch or otherwise interact with the device. In this decision, the Court acquitted Bleau of his conviction. It was decided that passively listening to a podcast on an unmounted device, did not constitute “use” per section 214.1.		In ''[https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/00/2021BCSC0013.htm R v. Bleau]'', 2021 BCSC 13, the accused received a ticket while listening to a podcast through his vehicle’s sound system. Bleau’s phone was connected by Bluetooth and loosely placed in the cup holder of the centre compartment. The phone was not securely affixed to the vehicle, but Bleau did not touch or otherwise interact with the device. In this decision, the Court acquitted Bleau of his conviction. It was decided that passively listening to a podcast on an unmounted device, did not constitute “use” per section 214.1.

	In a recent unreported BC Provincial Court decision, it was found that smartwatches do not fall under the definition of an “electronic device” for the purpose of MVA. The reasoning behind this is that a smartwatch is not a handheld device since it is worn on the body.		In a recent unreported BC Provincial Court decision, it was found that smartwatches do not fall under the definition of an “electronic device” for the purpose of MVA. The reasoning behind this is that a smartwatch is not a handheld device since it is worn on the body.

LSLAP: /* A. Common Offences */

2025-09-28T23:50:44Z

A. Common Offences

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:50, 28 September 2025
Line 10:		Line 10:
	Per section 146.1 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'', some vehicles, including but not limited to heavy commercial vehicles, the driver’s obedience of speed limits is insufficient, and the vehicle must be equipped with a speed limiter. A speed limiter means a system that prevents a motor vehicle from accelerating to or maintaining a certain speed. Section 146.2 allows police officers to stop and inspect vehicles without warrant in order to ensure speed limiters are installed.		Per section 146.1 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'', some vehicles, including but not limited to heavy commercial vehicles, the driver’s obedience of speed limits is insufficient, and the vehicle must be equipped with a speed limiter. A speed limiter means a system that prevents a motor vehicle from accelerating to or maintaining a certain speed. Section 146.2 allows police officers to stop and inspect vehicles without warrant in order to ensure speed limiters are installed.

	In R. v. Thachuk, 2024 BCSC 2393, the Court clarified that a ticketing officer’s visual estimates of speed are not required to support a laser speed reading. It also clarified that a discrepancy or broad margin of error in the visual estimate of speed does not override the validity of an otherwise accurate laser reading. Rather, the BCSC determined that a visual estimate primarily serves as a triggering mechanism for an officer to use their laser device. While a visual estimate can corroborate a laser reading, it is not necessary for conviction.		In ''R. v. Thachuk'', 2024 BCSC 2393, the Court clarified that a ticketing officer’s visual estimates of speed are not required to support a laser speed reading. It also clarified that a discrepancy or broad margin of error in the visual estimate of speed does not override the validity of an otherwise accurate laser reading. Rather, the BCSC determined that a visual estimate primarily serves as a triggering mechanism for an officer to use their laser device. While a visual estimate can corroborate a laser reading, it is not necessary for conviction.


Line 88:		Line 88:
	In [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/00/2021BCSC0013.htm ''R v. Bleau'', 2021 BCSC 13], the accused received a ticket while listening to a podcast through his vehicle’s sound system. Bleau’s phone was connected by Bluetooth and loosely placed in the cup holder of the centre compartment. The phone was not securely affixed to the vehicle, but Bleau did not touch or otherwise interact with the device. In this decision, the Court acquitted Bleau of his conviction. It was decided that passively listening to a podcast on an unmounted device, did not constitute “use” per section 214.1.		In [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/00/2021BCSC0013.htm ''R v. Bleau'', 2021 BCSC 13], the accused received a ticket while listening to a podcast through his vehicle’s sound system. Bleau’s phone was connected by Bluetooth and loosely placed in the cup holder of the centre compartment. The phone was not securely affixed to the vehicle, but Bleau did not touch or otherwise interact with the device. In this decision, the Court acquitted Bleau of his conviction. It was decided that passively listening to a podcast on an unmounted device, did not constitute “use” per section 214.1.

	In a recent unreported BC Provincial Court decision, it was found that smartwatches do not fall under the definition of an “electronic device” for the purpose of MVA. The reasoning behind this is that a smartwatch is not a handheld device since it is worn on the body.		In a recent unreported BC Provincial Court decision, it was found that smartwatches do not fall under the definition of an “electronic device” for the purpose of MVA. The reasoning behind this is that a smartwatch is not a handheld device since it is worn on the body.

	== B. Penalty Points ==		== B. Penalty Points ==

LSLAP: /* 2. Careless Driving */

2025-09-22T06:59:05Z

2. Careless Driving

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:59, 22 September 2025
Line 23:		Line 23:
	:c) At a speed that is excessive given the road, traffic, visibility, or weather conditions.		:c) At a speed that is excessive given the road, traffic, visibility, or weather conditions.

	A person who commits an offence under (a) or (b) is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $100 (s 144(2)) and six points added to their driving record. Subject to the minimum fine, s 4 of the ''Offence Act'' states that a fine must be less than $2,000. A person who commits an offence under (c) is liable on conviction to a fine of $173 and three penalty points as per the VTAFR and ''Motor Vehicle Act Regulations''.		A person who commits an offence under (a) or (b) is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $100 (s 144(2)) and six points added to their driving record. Subject to the minimum fine, s 4 of the ''Offence Act'' states that a fine must be less than $2,000. A person who commits an offence under (c) is liable on conviction to a fine of $173 and three penalty points as per the VTAFR and ''Motor Vehicle Act Regulations''. Section 144(3) states that in imposing a sentence for a s 144(1) offence, if the offence caused death or bodily injury to a vulnerable road user, that fact is to be considered an aggravating factor.

	To convict a driver of any of these offences, the Crown must only prove inadvertent negligence: a lack of proper care or absence of thought. The standard of care is determined in relation to the circumstances and carelessness must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: ''R v Beauchamp'', [1952] OJ No 495, (1953)106 CCC 6 (Ont CA).		To convict a driver of any of these offences, the Crown must only prove inadvertent negligence: a lack of proper care or absence of thought. The standard of care is determined in relation to the circumstances and carelessness must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: ''R v Beauchamp'', [1952] OJ No 495, (1953)106 CCC 6 (Ont CA).

LSLAP at 02:16, 19 September 2025

2025-09-19T02:16:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:16, 19 September 2025
Line 78:		Line 78:
	electronic device as use of an electronic device.		electronic device as use of an electronic device.

	In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2018/2018bcpc101/2018bcpc101.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20bainbridge&autocompletePos=3 ''R v Bainbridge'' 2018, BCPC 101] the accused was found guilty of the offence for simply holding the device in his hand while driving. The court held that any number of functions of the accused’s phone '''could''' have been used in the position in which he held his phone. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc745/2017bcsc745.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20jahani&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Jahani'', 2017 BCSC 745], the accused was found guilty of the offence for plugging his phone into the cord to charge the phone.		In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2018/2018bcpc101/2018bcpc101.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20bainbridge&autocompletePos=3 ''R v Bainbridge'' 2018, BCPC 101] the accused was found guilty of the offence for simply holding the device in his hand while driving. The court held that any number of functions of the accused’s phone '''could''' have been used in the position in which he held his phone. . In R. v. Virda, 2024 BCSC 2410, the accused was found guilty of the offence for tapping his cellphone twice while he was stopped at a light to accept an Uber Eats delivery offer. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc745/2017bcsc745.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20jahani&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Jahani'', 2017 BCSC 745], the accused was found guilty of the offence for plugging his phone into the cord to charge the phone.

	In ~~[https://www~~.~~canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2018/2018bcpc183/2018bcpc183~~.~~html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20tannhaus&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Tannhauser''~~, ~~2018 BCPC 183]~~, the accused was ~~acquitted of~~ the offence because ~~his cell~~ was ~~programmed with~~ a ~~software that immobilized~~ the ~~phone when a vehicle that is in motion. **This case was appealed~~ and ~~BCCA ordered~~ a ~~new trial~~. ~~The judge in the BCCA trial said that even though the cell phone could not immediately be used due to the software~~, it was ~~still an electronic device held~~ in ~~a position in which it may be used, which is illegal [http://canlii~~.~~ca/t/j7zgh ''~~R. v. ~~Tannhauser''~~, ~~2020 BCCA 155]~~.		In R . v. Antonio, 2024 BCSC 2300, the accused, a Class 7 licence holder, was charged with the offence because the ticketing officer observed that the accused’s cellphone was in a bag on the passenger seat and attached by a USB cable to his car. However, he was acquitted because simply driving with his cellphone plugged into his car did not constitute “use” as defined in s.214.2(1). Citing R. v. Sangret, 2019 BCSC 2131 at paras 14-18, having an electronic device mounted to or installed on the dashboard, without any holding, touching or other use of it, did not constitute “use” as defined in the Act.

	In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2019/2019bcsc360/2019bcsc360.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20partridge%202019%20BCS&autocompletePos=1 ''R v. Partridge'', 2019 BCSC 360], the accused was observed by a police officer looking downwards whilst driving and when stopped, a cell phone was found wedged between the folds of the passenger seat such that the screen was facing the driver. Accused was convicted. However, the accused was acquitted on appeal because the mere presence of a cell phone within sight of a driver is not enough to secure a conviction, leaving aside a situation where, for example, the screen is illuminated and so the driver may then be utilizing the cell phone in some fashion.		In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2019/2019bcsc360/2019bcsc360.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20partridge%202019%20BCS&autocompletePos=1 ''R v. Partridge'', 2019 BCSC 360], the accused was observed by a police officer looking downwards whilst driving and when stopped, a cell phone was found wedged between the folds of the passenger seat such that the screen was facing the driver. Accused was convicted. However, the accused was acquitted on appeal because the mere presence of a cell phone within sight of a driver is not enough to secure a conviction, leaving aside a situation where, for example, the screen is illuminated and so the driver may then be utilizing the cell phone in some fashion.

			In R. v. Mirza, 2023 BCSC 881, the accused was charged with the offence after the ticketing officer observed that his cellphone lying flat on his thigh, the screen upwards and unlit, while stopped at a traffic light. The accused argued that he was not “using” his cellphone, which was leaning on his leg. He contended that both his hands were on his steering wheel, he was not looking down at his device, and he was not “using” any of the functions of his device. The BCSC upheld the finding that the accused had violated s.214.2(1) because “if [the cellphone] is being held on the lap or on the thigh, it is still holding within the meaning of the statute” [para 19-20].

	In [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/00/2021BCSC0013.htm ''R v. Bleau'', 2021 BCSC 13], the accused received a ticket while listening to a podcast through his vehicle’s sound system. Bleau’s phone was connected by Bluetooth and loosely placed in the cup holder of the centre compartment. The phone was not securely affixed to the vehicle, but Bleau did not touch or otherwise interact with the device. In this decision, the Court acquitted Bleau of his conviction. It was decided that passively listening to a podcast on an unmounted device, did not constitute “use” per section 214.1.		In [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/00/2021BCSC0013.htm ''R v. Bleau'', 2021 BCSC 13], the accused received a ticket while listening to a podcast through his vehicle’s sound system. Bleau’s phone was connected by Bluetooth and loosely placed in the cup holder of the centre compartment. The phone was not securely affixed to the vehicle, but Bleau did not touch or otherwise interact with the device. In this decision, the Court acquitted Bleau of his conviction. It was decided that passively listening to a podcast on an unmounted device, did not constitute “use” per section 214.1.

LSLAP at 02:14, 19 September 2025

2025-09-19T02:14:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:14, 19 September 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:

	Per section 146.1 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'', some vehicles, including but not limited to heavy commercial vehicles, the driver’s obedience of speed limits is insufficient, and the vehicle must be equipped with a speed limiter. A speed limiter means a system that prevents a motor vehicle from accelerating to or maintaining a certain speed. Section 146.2 allows police officers to stop and inspect vehicles without warrant in order to ensure speed limiters are installed.		Per section 146.1 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'', some vehicles, including but not limited to heavy commercial vehicles, the driver’s obedience of speed limits is insufficient, and the vehicle must be equipped with a speed limiter. A speed limiter means a system that prevents a motor vehicle from accelerating to or maintaining a certain speed. Section 146.2 allows police officers to stop and inspect vehicles without warrant in order to ensure speed limiters are installed.

			In R. v. Thachuk, 2024 BCSC 2393, the Court clarified that a ticketing officer’s visual estimates of speed are not required to support a laser speed reading. It also clarified that a discrepancy or broad margin of error in the visual estimate of speed does not override the validity of an otherwise accurate laser reading. Rather, the BCSC determined that a visual estimate primarily serves as a triggering mechanism for an officer to use their laser device. While a visual estimate can corroborate a laser reading, it is not necessary for conviction.


	=== 2. Careless Driving ===		=== 2. Careless Driving ===

LSLAP at 21:02, 21 August 2024

2024-08-21T21:02:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:02, 21 August 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~July 1~~, ~~2023~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= August 14, 2024}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}

LSLAP at 23:02, 5 August 2024

2024-08-05T23:02:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:02, 5 August 2024
Line 6:		Line 6:
	=== 1. Speeding ===		=== 1. Speeding ===

	The most common provincial offence committed in BC is speeding in violation of section 146 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act''. Generally, drivers must not exceed 50km/h in a municipality or on treaty lands, 80km/h on other highways, and must not operate a motor vehicle at a rate of speed higher than that posted on a sign. S 148.2 of the Motor Vehicle Act lists a defence to speeding: if the sign stating the speed limit was obscured or impossible to read, the accused cannot be convicted. This is an affirmative defence and the burden is on the accused to prove that the sign was obscured or impossible to read.		The most common provincial offence committed in BC is speeding in violation of section 146 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act''. Generally, drivers must not exceed 50km/h in a municipality or on treaty lands, 80km/h on other highways, and must not operate a motor vehicle at a rate of speed higher than that posted on a sign. S 148.2 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'' lists a defence to speeding: if the sign stating the speed limit was obscured or impossible to read, the accused cannot be convicted. This is an affirmative defence and the burden is on the accused to prove that the sign was obscured or impossible to read.

			Per section 146.1 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'', some vehicles, including but not limited to heavy commercial vehicles, the driver’s obedience of speed limits is insufficient, and the vehicle must be equipped with a speed limiter. A speed limiter means a system that prevents a motor vehicle from accelerating to or maintaining a certain speed. Section 146.2 allows police officers to stop and inspect vehicles without warrant in order to ensure speed limiters are installed.

	=== 2. Careless Driving ===		=== 2. Careless Driving ===