23
'The ticket was for almost $600’: Electric unicyclists demand change to B.C. road rules
(www.iheartradio.ca)
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
23 points (92.6% liked)
Pacific Northwest - OR,WA,BC
1633 readers
2 users here now
Discussion specific to the Pacific Northwest. News, events, general topics.
Simple rules:
- Content related to the Pacific Northwest only. News, sports, political movements, etc.
- Don't be a dick.
- No NSFW content.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Generally speaking, law is prohibitive, not permissive. Anything not expressly prohibited is lawful. Unless EUCs fit within a prohibited category, the law has not prohibited them.
Alternatively, if they fit within an expressly permitted category, they are lawful. The state is burdened with proving they do not fit within that category. "Mobility devices" are not defined in law; the rule of leniety says that if the law is vague enough that it can be reasonably interpreted in two ways, it must be interpreted in the way most beneficial to the defendant accused of violating it. Unless the prosecutor can prove that EUCs do not meet the (non-existent) definition of "mobility devices", they must be treated as such.
The problem is, we're not speaking generally. We're talking about the BC MVA, which sets out specific definitions for terms (e.g. "vehicle") and then specifies both allowances and prohibitions for how objects like "vehicles" can operate on public roads and such.
The article suggests there's a consensus that EUCs don't fit within a permitted category under the MVA, so the rule of leniety doesn't come into play.