Surrey Mall Biker Fined $13,500

[Always Sunny]

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/307667 ... obile=true

So some sources call him/them the biker while others only refer to them as the owner. I'm lead to believe that the person who actually rode the motorcycle through the mall was not the registered owner.

All sources state that in BC the registered owner is "responsible for their vehicle at all times". Given this one was found with stolen plates, one would imagine the owner hadn't simply given their son/neighbor/buddy the keys to go for a rip.

Is this to say that if your car, truck, motorcycle, ATV, etc. is stolen in BC and is used to create havoc, commit a crime, destroy property, kill someone, etc. that you're essentially responsible.

Call me totally ignorant, but if that's the case...wow.

[36Drew]

Is this to say that if your car, truck, motorcycle, ATV, etc. is stolen in BC and is used to create havoc, commit a crime, destroy property, kill someone, etc. that you're essentially responsible.

Call me totally ignorant, but if that's the case...wow.

According to the BC MVA Section 83:

83(3) An owner must not be held liable under under subsection (2) or (2.1) if the owner establishes that
(a) the person who was, at the time of the contravention, in possession of the motor vehicle was not entrusted by the owner with possession, or
(b) the owner exercised reasonable care and diligence when the person entrusted the motor vehicle to the person who was, at the time of the contravention, in possession of the motor vehicle.

83.1(3) contains the same language.

I would assume that if your vehicle is stolen from you, and you were held liable, that you could argue that you did not entrust the thief with possession of your vehicle.

I gather that, in this very specific case, the police believe that to not be the case - that perhaps the owner did entrust the vehicle to the rider.

[django]

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96318_05#section191

Leaving parked vehicle
191 (1) A motor vehicle must be equipped with a lock or other device to prevent the unauthorized use of the motor vehicle.

(2) A driver must not permit a motor vehicle to stand unattended or parked unless the driver has
(a) locked it or made it secure in a manner that prevents its unauthorized use, and
(b) if the motor vehicle is standing on a grade, turned the front wheels of the vehicle to the curb or side of the highway.

[36Drew]

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96318_05#section191

Leaving parked vehicle
191 (1) A motor vehicle must be equipped with a lock or other device to prevent the unauthorized use of the motor vehicle.

(2) A driver must not permit a motor vehicle to stand unattended or parked unless the driver has
(a) locked it or made it secure in a manner that prevents its unauthorized use, and
(b) if the motor vehicle is standing on a grade, turned the front wheels of the vehicle to the curb or side of the highway.

...and what point are you driving at?

[django]

I think if you don't make an effort to secure your vehicle like some people do not do when they leave the keys in them, I think you should be accountable if it is stolen as a direct result of the owner being negligent in doing this. But then I'm weird that way, I also think starter kill security systems should be mandatory for all vehicles that are being insured for use in BC and Canada, seems like a simple solution that would prevent the vast majority of thefts.

[36Drew]

I think if you don't make an effort to secure your vehicle like some people do not do when they leave the keys in them, I think you should be accountable if it is stolen as a direct result of the owner being negligent in doing this. But then I'm weird that way, I also think starter kill security systems should be mandatory for all vehicles that are being insured for use in BC and Canada, seems like a simple solution that would prevent the vast majority of thefts.

I think that if you don't make an effort to secure your vehicle, the law is very clear that you are accountable. I'm also quite certain that the vast majority of vehicle owners don't leave keys in their vehicles.

[Donald G]

After reading the posts over a couple of times it is not clear to me what part. if any. the owner played in enabling or carrying out the "mall ride", nor if he/she was the one charged.

[Always Sunny]

After reading the posts over a couple of times it is not clear to me what part. if any. the owner played in enabling or carrying out the "mall ride", nor if he/she was the one charged.

The article states:

While police are unable to put the owner on the motorcycle at the time of the infractions, they are fining him as the registered owner of the bike.

Regardless of whether or not they had any role in the mall ride, as the registered owner they're being fined $13,500. He/she could have been out of the country at the time for all we know. It's just bananas that simply being the registered owner could lead to such fines. Certainly if they'd lent someone the bike it's another thing entirely. But by the sounds of it (or what they choose to release publically) nothing suggests it was a misuse of a borrowed bike.

[Donald G]

Suggesting that the owner of a bike of that calibre and ownership did not know who was riding the bike is impossible for me to believe. Riding himself or definitely knew who was riding it but refused to tell the police is my guess.

Good for the police. Another tic in the win column.